Fredledingue Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Sorry for the off-topic, but... it's so incredible that I couldn't help it! 7.17Gb, 35,880 files, 6326 folders. Vista forumWhen I think that some poeple here are still trying to slim down w98... some succeeding in running windows on 20 Mb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyShadow Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 64-Bit 11.4GB52,471 files 9,747 folders....This is not after a clean install, but I haven't installed much, Creative drivers, Steam... It's just about a clean install...All said and done installing Windows took up 20GB of my drive...LOL holy crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randiroo76073 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Hot sh.t & spit, you've got to be kidding, I can & have mulit booted 95, 98fe, 98se, ME, 2K in less room than that! 10gb hdd & had room left, tho not much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfX2 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 (edited) ever heard the old joke...Q: how does Microsoft change a light-bulb?A: They don't, they change the standard to dark Edited June 29, 2006 by WolfX2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijono Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Wow... that is a lot of hard disk space!!According to the theory of probability, the bigger the volume, the bigger is the chance of bugs too!!In the following website:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvi...e/vistarpc.mspxMicrosoft mentioned a.o. about the hardware Minimum Supported Requirements as follows:Processor 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2System Memory 512 MBGPU SVGA (800x600)Graphics Memory (empty)HDD 20 GBHDD Free Space 15 GBOptical Drive CD-ROM DriveIn one of my PC with Pentium III running at 800, the WinXP is VERY slow, let alone with Windows Vista, so I doubt the statement on the "Processor" above.Someone with 800 MHz Processor would be better off to stay with Win98SE. I do that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Haha o wow... I heard a large portion of Vista was written in .NET... maybe that explains it.Here's a 4.38Mb Win98: http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/That's almost two thousandths the size Vista is taking.My Windows directory is 970Mb, and that's after 6 years of use and much software being installed. I'm sure much of that is duplicated (backup) files of files that I've customised in one way or another.M$ software is in a state of decline... definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 Someone said that M$ lacks of imagination...I don't agree: they must have A LOT of imagination to fill so much space.OS Vista should be classified as "monster OS" or something...Seriousely, what could be that is so necessary, in 7Gb+...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galahs Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 lol, another great reason why Windows 98 has a rite to live on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camarade_Tux Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 ever heard the old joke...Q: how does Microsoft change a light-bulb?A: They don't, they change the standard to dark I love that one.And I think I will backup nano98. This website and its contents must live on. It's really incredible and wonderful. And Longhorn is mainly written in .Net. On the other hand Longhorn includes WinFS.Vista was to be written mainly in .Net but I don't know how things evolved. Interface uses .Net Framework3.@Fredledingue, maybe we will have 256x256 icons at last. Here is a quick list of things that take place:-.Net Framework3/WinFX (WinFX, WinFS, Wingneugneugneu... it's gonna be hard)-TabletPC and WMP11 with lots of "cool" graphics and eye-candy-games, games, games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azagahl Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 (edited) >7.17GbIf the final release of Vista gets much larger, you will need an HD-DVD drive to install it.BTW, nano Windows could become even smaller with a rebuilt vmm32.vxd. But without ESDI-506.PDR or SMARTDRV.EXE it is going to be slow. Personally, I would use the Via IDE Miniport drivers to avoid problems with PATA disks > 137 GB. (I have a Via motherboard). Edited June 29, 2006 by azagahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmshah Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 All you guys have major project coming up Enlighetening your Vista , sorry nLiteing Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted July 3, 2006 Author Share Posted July 3, 2006 All you guys have major project coming up Enlighetening your Vista , sorry nLiteing Vista.I'm afraid it will take years before the XP/Vista geeks nlight vista to a sub Gb install.M$ software is in a state of decline... definitely. That's what I think too.A software company that create a monster of 7Gb cannot be efficient itself. The mere fact that the directors accepted to release such a thing without shame is insane.The fact that many Gb installs are not an issue on today's large HDD, doesn't mean that they should feel obliged to fill it.M$ should stop thinking that new hardware performances are there for the sole purpose of running windows!No respect for the basic rules of programing, no respect for the hardware, no respect for the poeple.That's where they go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Just for the record, this "edition" of 98, though a bit bigger, has far better capabilities than the original "nano98", which is really minimal:http://winimize.com/Some more ideas/ways/links here:http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=12326jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash&Burn Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 One needs to look outside of "code". While it's very likely there is huge swathes of not-so-veryily-optimized code in Vista - much like everything else being produced today it is overladen with graphical candy.When you consider downloaded video takes up GIGS of space, and each MP3 is 4+ Megs --- and people don't bat an eye when installing a game that will eat up 2-5 Gigs...Is it really so suprising that the enhanced graphics of Vista consumes so much hard drive real estate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 (edited) One needs to look outside of "code". While it's very likely there is huge swathes of not-so-veryily-optimized code in Vista - much like everything else being produced today it is overladen with graphical candy.When you consider downloaded video takes up GIGS of space, and each MP3 is 4+ Megs --- and people don't bat an eye when installing a game that will eat up 2-5 Gigs...Is it really so suprising that the enhanced graphics of Vista consumes so much hard drive real estate?Thats because Vista is supposed to be an OS, i.e. it's not supposed to consume the resources, but rather only provide services for the apps that *are* supposed to be using the majority of the system resources. A game being 2-5Gb is understandable, as it contains a lot of graphics and textures, and games are supposed to have those. An OS is not a game... it doesn't require any fancy graphics and textures.A video is already compressed with lossy compression, a sacrifice of quality vs size. The same with MP3s. But those are simply data and not programs. Edited July 5, 2006 by LLXX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now