Re: Keyboard

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

On Sat, 3 May 2008 15:34:21 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:35:36 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

Just to put that 100MB into perspective, you can buy a 160GB hard
drive these days for around $50 US. That means that 100MB is about 3
cents worth of disk space.

*Millions* of bytes sounds like a lot, until you do the arithmetic and
realize how little their dollar value is.

Not to mention that the .net framework will likely be needed for more
than that single program.

That may well be, but when you realize that Win98SE (the entire operating
system) could fit in about that same amount of space (well, ok, maybe 200
MB)..... it's got to make you wonder where we're really going (with all
the
new bloatware).


I don't see it that way at all, and I wouldn't choose to use the word
"bloatware."

With almost no exceptions, every new version of any operating system,
and any new version of any other kind of software, does more than its
predecessor. Not surprisingly, that extra functionality takes more
code and makes the result bigger. "Bloat" is not simply using more
resources, but doing the same things and using more resources.

I'm still trying to figure out just exactly what WinXP Home Edition, as an
operating system (and for me as a single user), allows me to do that I
couldn't do (and wanted to do) in Win98SE...


The question of whether you personally consider its changes and
additions valuable is an entirely different one from the point I was
making. It's always your choice whether you want what a new version
provides, and for some people the old version may be good enough.

Nevertheless, there's lots that's new and different in XP over what
was in 98.


(one thing it does do, however, is remove a bit more control of the
operating system from a user's tweaking, however)


You can consider that valuable or not. Your choice.



The major thing I've noticed is that WinXP IS more stable (fewer blue
screens), and, of course, will run some newer programs (which, only by the
developer's choice, aren't being written for W9x anymore).


I think it's *much* more stable.


(The NTFS thing is a mixed bag due to its overhead, but, admitedly, on the
whole, seems beneficial).

Then again, the built in Search for Files function in WinXP sucks (as
compared to that in Win98SE), in part due to all the extra crap it filters
out - OR allows in!! - in its searches, rendering it nearly useless).

And of course running SFC gives you no good logging or even choices, for
that matter. (etc)


In my view, that's good, not bad, especially since the extra disk
space the newer version takes invariably costs *less* than the amount
the older version took.

But if you would prefer to have a smaller drive and an older operating
system with less functionality, feel free to run Windows 98SE, or
whatever you choose--even DOS 3.0 or earlier.

My first personal computer ran DOS 3.0 on a 20MB hard drive. Yes, the
operating system took much less space, but that 20MB drive cost me
$200. Today, I can buy a 160GB drive for $50. For a quarter of the
disk price, I get much more functionality in a modern operating
system. I think that's great!

Ultimately, my point is that measuring what you call "bloat" in
numbers of megabytes or gigabytes is meaningless. The only significant
measurement is in dollars (substitute your own local currency, if not
dollars). And those dollars spent need to be measured against the
amount of functionality the product provides.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Keyboard
    ... cents worth of disk space. ... With almost no exceptions, every new version of any operating system, ... that extra functionality takes more ... Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Operating systems at war?
    ... add features with the same functionality as Windows, ... going down the "Windows without Microsoft" route which David ... operating system does not turn it into another operating system. ... to wanting RISC OS with enhancements. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: IE help neede....
    ... without anything resembling a true operating system and lacking functionality that had been present in Unix since the late sixties/early 70s. ... No Linux and FreeBSD system I've used on Intel and Alpha CPUs has had anywhere near the poor track record of MS. ...
    (comp.sys.cbm)
  • Re: [Full-Disclosure] Cisco takes it easy
    ... > was designed with functionality and security mind. ... > no separation between the operating system and the firewall application, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • using templates as substitutions for #ifdef
    ... operating system specific functionality and presents it in a uniform ... particular piece of code to match that of the native operating system ... template ... This way the compiler wouldn't need to compile the class unless it was ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)