Next version of windows will need around 100 GB disk space for itself!

[Tiberius]

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to year
2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed "vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat???

 

[Tom Lake]

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
"vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat???

Ah, but see here!

http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=7284&catid=1

The capacity of hard drives will be about 5 TB in two years.
100 GB will be trivial!

Tom Lake

 

[Tiberius]

so I guess the next version of windows will be available on blue ray or hdd
disks that can hold 20-25 gb of infortmation
so that when its unpacked and installed it would inflate to 100gb.
Or could could get a 5 dvd install set.

Please insert next disk to continue....


Now lets think a little about ram

win95=8mb, win98=16, winMe=32, winXP= 128, winVista= 512, Win Vienna? It
seems that it will need
2GB of ram just for itself!!! The rise is non linear, rather
logarythmic.....

Of course there will be only a 64 bit version it seems... since a 32 bit OS
cannot handle more than 4 gb.
With the OS taking up half of that.. you will have only 2 free (in reality
it its less, more like 1 gb left)
(yeah I know servers @ 32 bit can handle many chunks of 4 gb)

 

[Julian]

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
"vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat???

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and
Z/OS
systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.

As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are
meaningless.

 

[Tiberius]

yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space capacity
has grown faster than the
needs of the OS

But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol

 

[Tiberius]

Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
windows...
The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
available,
why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?

Anyway this graph is not a precise one.. its a fuzzy estimate, just to see
trends...

No one knows what will happen in the future... or even if there will be
another version of windows
for that matter!

 

[Julian]

Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
windows...
The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
available,
why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?

Oh I get it....

You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and
1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills

XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very
different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, although
some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew..

Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much revised
code..

Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb..

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
"vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat???

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Tiberius]

you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp

im talking about the OS...

thats 5 times more space

Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla
version?

The first one needed less that what you say I believe.

 

[DanS]

Oh I get it....

You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.

I see that as a valid way to look at it.

 

[Tiberius]

you can draw various conclusions from this...

indeed disk space is getting cheaper and disks are getting bigger and
bigger..

im not saying that they are not... Im just taking a peek into the future...

 

[Tom Lake]

yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space
capacity has grown faster than the
needs of the OS

But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol

Just think of the improvements in Solitaire! 8^)

Tom Lake

 

[Tiberius]

yeah 3d people in virtual worlds passing out the cards... the cards will be
3 dimensional cubes with a different card on each side..as a player you will
have various weapons to defend yourselfs from monsters that will try to
steal your deck of cards.

it might even have a "strip solitaire" with a secret code that only adults
would be able to access...

Im sure that last feature would boost windows sales

 

[Vanguard]

in message

it might even have a "strip solitaire" with a secret code that only
adults would be able to access...

Im sure that last feature would boost windows sales

With all the crap on Usenet, I doubt a deck of nudie cards would have
much appeal to the adults that actually have a job to pay for the new
hardware and OS. Might tantalize the teens but then they're not the
ones with the money.

 

[Vanguard]

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
"vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat???

Linear extrapolation over a single-point change on a non-linear chart.
Uh huh.

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and
Z/OS
systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.

Aren't we being defensive, MickeyMouse Fanboy. Just in case you're really
interested, minimum system requirements for Ubuntu 6.06 LTS ...

Desktop ... 3GB (remember this comes with much software besides just the
o/s: Open Office, Games, FireFox, Evolution Mail, Themes, Gaim, Gimp, etc.
etc.)

Server ... 500MB

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

Tiberius

A working Win 2000 c/w Service pack 4 uses up 1.5-1.75gb..

you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp

im talking about the OS...

thats 5 times more space

Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla
version?

The first one needed less that what you say I believe.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Lang Murphy]

Aren't we being defensive, MickeyMouse Fanboy. Just in case you're really
interested, minimum system requirements for Ubuntu 6.06 LTS ...

Desktop ... 3GB (remember this comes with much software besides just the
o/s: Open Office, Games, FireFox, Evolution Mail, Themes, Gaim, Gimp, etc.
etc.)

Server ... 500MB

Love and Kisses,
Doris

Totally irrelevant. As usual.

Lang

 

[Alias]

in message news:%[email protected]...


With all the crap on Usenet, I doubt a deck of nudie cards would have
much appeal to the adults that actually have a job to pay for the new
hardware and OS. Might tantalize the teens but then they're not the
ones with the money.

But with MS it will be "safe sex".

Alias

 

[Alias]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM
and Z/OS
systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.

As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are
meaningless.

Ubuntu runs just fine on my AMD K7 at 800 Mhz with 256MB of PC-133 RAM.
XP runs on it like molasses runs in a Vermont winter. Vista doesn't have
a chance, even the stripped down Basic version.

Alias