J
JEWboy
It is a sad fact, but the times when software engineering problems were
solved through intelligence instead of brute force are long gone. Go
and check for yourself how an entire OS with a GUI used to fit in 64
KiB memory. Alas, this was more than 20 years ago.
With CPUs pushing to even higher performance levels and storage prices
nose-diving, don't expect anything brighter in the future. It would be
precious time wasted to try and optimize some system component nowadays
by trying to fit it in some smaller footprint. The next Windows version
will be much bigger, and much more resource hungry, this is for sure.
It is simply the price to pay for being able to manage a HUGE software
product as Vista. I read once that Windows 95 was coded in app. 10
millions lines of source code, I may only guess that number for Vista
has multiplied at least tenfold. The only way to maintain control over
such monster is by sacrificing efficiency here and there, for
the sake of simpler programming and management.
But think of the opposite side of things: It is the users that demand
new features over and over, and a new OS must live to the high
expectations nowadays. It would be possible for Microsoft to reduce the
requirements of the OS greatly, I'm sure, but than we would have
thousands of angry haters complaining about the OS as not being
adequate to the current context.
Regarding the winsxs policy - I strongly advise not to try and touch
anything in the corresponding folder, it isn't that straightforward
anyway. It doubt it is the best solution to the problem, but I can't do
anything about it. I also have a 15 GB windows folder 33 days after
installing Vista, and it was a bad surprise for me, since storage on my
notebook is heavily limited. But then again, I can't accuse the
software engineers in Microsoft either, for the reasons I already
pointed out. It's simply the price being paid for moving forward.
solved through intelligence instead of brute force are long gone. Go
and check for yourself how an entire OS with a GUI used to fit in 64
KiB memory. Alas, this was more than 20 years ago.
With CPUs pushing to even higher performance levels and storage prices
nose-diving, don't expect anything brighter in the future. It would be
precious time wasted to try and optimize some system component nowadays
by trying to fit it in some smaller footprint. The next Windows version
will be much bigger, and much more resource hungry, this is for sure.
It is simply the price to pay for being able to manage a HUGE software
product as Vista. I read once that Windows 95 was coded in app. 10
millions lines of source code, I may only guess that number for Vista
has multiplied at least tenfold. The only way to maintain control over
such monster is by sacrificing efficiency here and there, for
the sake of simpler programming and management.
But think of the opposite side of things: It is the users that demand
new features over and over, and a new OS must live to the high
expectations nowadays. It would be possible for Microsoft to reduce the
requirements of the OS greatly, I'm sure, but than we would have
thousands of angry haters complaining about the OS as not being
adequate to the current context.
Regarding the winsxs policy - I strongly advise not to try and touch
anything in the corresponding folder, it isn't that straightforward
anyway. It doubt it is the best solution to the problem, but I can't do
anything about it. I also have a 15 GB windows folder 33 days after
installing Vista, and it was a bad surprise for me, since storage on my
notebook is heavily limited. But then again, I can't accuse the
software engineers in Microsoft either, for the reasons I already
pointed out. It's simply the price being paid for moving forward.