Can they afford this? (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 09:53 (#2R4C) XP had been declared "EOLed" quite some time ago, but Microsoft had to extend the period many times. I'd not be surprised if the same happened with Windows 7 (unless they soon bring a Windows 9 that people actually like). Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Interesting) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 10:20 (#2R4N) I was thinking the same. I actually quite like Win7 and would prefer it over WinXP if I'm installing on a machine with enough space. I'm amazed at how many more gigs on the harddrive Win7 requires. For virtual machines and such I still prefer XP and for some stuff I even try to install Win2000, which is pretty light in comparison. Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Insightful) by nightsky30@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 11:33 (#2R5A) It amazes me how exponentially crazy the size of OSes have grown as well, especially Windows. I realize there is added functionality in each new version (ok, this could be argued :D), and increased resolution in packaged images, but why the many GB in increase? Why the bloat? Linux seems to be outgrowing the CD now with many mainstream distros requiring a DVD (if you don't count minimal CLI installs), but would it kill to focus more on efficiency in software size and even function? Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:31 (#2RB3) Linux distros are giving you a lot more than an OS, as is Windows. The install media's size isn't what you should be worrying about.What you should be worrying about is the system resources to require to actually run the OS. Linux in general will still run on an i486, and with a Pentium 2 or so, you can even run X. Windows 7 takes HOW many GIGABYTES of RAM?You can go for a minimal install of Linux or Windows if you want a small hard drive footprint, but the bloat is in the resource requirements to run.
Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Interesting) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 10:20 (#2R4N) I was thinking the same. I actually quite like Win7 and would prefer it over WinXP if I'm installing on a machine with enough space. I'm amazed at how many more gigs on the harddrive Win7 requires. For virtual machines and such I still prefer XP and for some stuff I even try to install Win2000, which is pretty light in comparison. Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Insightful) by nightsky30@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 11:33 (#2R5A) It amazes me how exponentially crazy the size of OSes have grown as well, especially Windows. I realize there is added functionality in each new version (ok, this could be argued :D), and increased resolution in packaged images, but why the many GB in increase? Why the bloat? Linux seems to be outgrowing the CD now with many mainstream distros requiring a DVD (if you don't count minimal CLI installs), but would it kill to focus more on efficiency in software size and even function? Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:31 (#2RB3) Linux distros are giving you a lot more than an OS, as is Windows. The install media's size isn't what you should be worrying about.What you should be worrying about is the system resources to require to actually run the OS. Linux in general will still run on an i486, and with a Pentium 2 or so, you can even run X. Windows 7 takes HOW many GIGABYTES of RAM?You can go for a minimal install of Linux or Windows if you want a small hard drive footprint, but the bloat is in the resource requirements to run.
Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Insightful) by nightsky30@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 11:33 (#2R5A) It amazes me how exponentially crazy the size of OSes have grown as well, especially Windows. I realize there is added functionality in each new version (ok, this could be argued :D), and increased resolution in packaged images, but why the many GB in increase? Why the bloat? Linux seems to be outgrowing the CD now with many mainstream distros requiring a DVD (if you don't count minimal CLI installs), but would it kill to focus more on efficiency in software size and even function? Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:31 (#2RB3) Linux distros are giving you a lot more than an OS, as is Windows. The install media's size isn't what you should be worrying about.What you should be worrying about is the system resources to require to actually run the OS. Linux in general will still run on an i486, and with a Pentium 2 or so, you can even run X. Windows 7 takes HOW many GIGABYTES of RAM?You can go for a minimal install of Linux or Windows if you want a small hard drive footprint, but the bloat is in the resource requirements to run.
Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:31 (#2RB3) Linux distros are giving you a lot more than an OS, as is Windows. The install media's size isn't what you should be worrying about.What you should be worrying about is the system resources to require to actually run the OS. Linux in general will still run on an i486, and with a Pentium 2 or so, you can even run X. Windows 7 takes HOW many GIGABYTES of RAM?You can go for a minimal install of Linux or Windows if you want a small hard drive footprint, but the bloat is in the resource requirements to run.