Vista to take 15 gig of HD space

[Ichigo]

So you've got people upgrading to 2GB ram for games. Spending money on half a terabyte of space.

But those same people whine about Firefox using 100mb of RAM when they have huge amounts of idle ram and now Vista when they have ungodly amounts of hard drive space.

Honestly people, you'd spend $2000 on upgrades for a game but you can't spare 15GB for Vista? What the heck?

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: Vampirrella
How soon will we be forced to make the switch over to Vista? Are software companies developing solely for the Vista platform now? My Xp pro systems work great and im hoping to squeeze another few yrs out of the XP OS before i have to pay $$$$$ for x amount of copies of Vista for licences on my network systems. Always in a no-win situation. I hated it back when i was "forced" to upgrade to PCI-e architecture too, just for a graphic card upgrade, but then i needed new memory too ect ect... always forcing us to spend more more more ugh

Are you serious? Look at how many people still run Win98SE. No one is forcing you to upgrade anything. I wasn't forced to buy dual core. Nor the 7800gt or 2GB of ram, or my nearly 1TB of disk space. I did all that because I wanted to, because I chose to.

 

[dukdukgoos]

Originally posted by: Looney

It's absolutely NOTHING like XP. It was created from the ground up.

Care to back that claim up with sources? It's the same old kernel with a few (very few) enhancements.

 

[Noema]

Meh, I don't care. Most games now a days have installs of over 5GBs. And HDD space is dirt cheap. A 300GB hard disk can be had for less than a measly benjamin. I have an 80GB disk exclusively for OSes, and a 250GB Maxtor HDD for storage, games and applications. And I know most people here have more HDD space than I do.

Heck, my pr0n folder is bigger than 15GB. :laugh: :evil:

 

[Rangoric]

3gb for the install, 4gb for the pagefile. 2 gb for user files and settings.

2gb for an install directory. So that leaves 4gb for other stuff.

Or am I off base and it says somewhere the install itself takes up 15gb?

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
3gb for the install, 4gb for the pagefile. 2 gb for user files and settings.

2gb for an install directory. So that leaves 4gb for other stuff.

Or am I off base and it says somewhere the install itself takes up 15gb?

Perhaps Vista uses the extra space for a System Restore (complete restore that is).

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: Rangoric
3gb for the install, 4gb for the pagefile. 2 gb for user files and settings.

2gb for an install directory. So that leaves 4gb for other stuff.

Or am I off base and it says somewhere the install itself takes up 15gb?

Perhaps Vista uses the extra space for a System Restore (complete restore that is).

Gah knew I was forgetting something. Thats 10% of the typical hard drive (well thats the default or is it 12%). Or at least 2gb in this case.

 

[Zugzwang152]

Originally posted by: nyker96
In that case, Hasta la Vista ...

lol, you have a 200GB hard drive (and probably not your only one), and you're concerned about 15GB?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
So you've got people upgrading to 2GB ram for games. Spending money on half a terabyte of space.

But those same people whine about Firefox using 100mb of RAM when they have huge amounts of idle ram and now Vista when they have ungodly amounts of hard drive space.

Honestly people, you'd spend $2000 on upgrades for a game but you can't spare 15GB for Vista? What the heck?

That really isn't the point, if we could, we wouldn't upgrade at all. A video game and an operating system are two different things, a game requiring more resources for improved realism is understandable, an OS requiring more resources for the same ****** ISN'T acceptable. God I hate microsoft.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: dukdukgoos

Originally posted by: Looney

It's absolutely NOTHING like XP. It was created from the ground up.

Care to back that claim up with sources? It's the same old kernel with a few (very few) enhancements.

The kernal is VERY small in size compared to the whole OS. And yes, i've backed that claim up in the OS forum many times. Go there and do a search if you really are interested.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: Looney
I don't know why you guys are complaining... i haven't seen a system sold in the last year with anything less than 100GB.

I know it's more than 15GB but here: Dell 1100 - 80GB

There's probably hundreds more but that's just an example.

And you think this won't fit Vista?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

im sure it wont take that much once its done installing. it probably needs alot of temp file space to get it installed.

either way, hard drives are dirt cheap so i dont care how much space it takes up.

 

[Bowsky]

I guess this means I won't be able to install the upcoming beta on my 10gig partition I've been using to try out Linux. I was looking forward trying it out.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: Looney
I don't know why you guys are complaining... i haven't seen a system sold in the last year with anything less than 100GB.

I know it's more than 15GB but here: Dell 1100 - 80GB

There's probably hundreds more but that's just an example.

And you think this won't fit Vista?

That's not what I was pointing out. I was justshowing you that you can buy PC's retail with less than 100GB Hard Drives. Hell you can still buy Laptops with 20GB drives brand new. I really doubt it's going to use any more than 8GB anyway.

 

[13Gigatons]

Actual Install:

Total: 7.81 GB
Used: 4.92 GB
Free: 2.89 GB



The 15 GB is probably so you can install apps and games.

 

[Ichigo]

Maybe we should have stayed with the command line interface with these people complaining like they do.

If I've spent money on all these upgrades JUST FOR GAMES, I certainly wouldn't mind an OS that could take advantage of it. It it makes the user interface better, why complain? Just stick with your Windows 2000 and be done with it.

 

[clickynext]

Says 15 GB free as a reasonable estimate for a usable system, all things considered. Doesn't mean the install alone is going to take 15 GB.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: dukdukgoos

Originally posted by: Looney

It's absolutely NOTHING like XP. It was created from the ground up.

Care to back that claim up with sources? It's the same old kernel with a few (very few) enhancements.

It was writen from the ground up.

The problem is, everyone sees the Vista screenshots and notices it looks just like someone took XP and slapped on some OSX features and a new skin. You don't see any of the underlying code differences.

 

[stash]

This:

Technology
Systems Software
Windows Vista will not ship without robust security, Microsoft tells business
by Bill Goodwin
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Microsoft has told business users the security of its next generation Windows operating system is such a priority that it will push back the launch date if necessary.

Detlef Eckert, Microsoft's chief security adviser, said Windows Vista will not be released until it completes testing to ensure the code is robust and security...

Article Continues Below

... vulnerabilities have been identified.

"Unless Vista passes the final security review, it will not ship," he said. "We are still in early beta testing. The components will be checked and checked again. If it is not working, it will not ship."

Vista is the first Windows operating system to be designed from the ground up using Microsoft's secure design methodology, introduced in 2002. It will offer security enhancements to make it compelling for many firms, Eckert told Computer Weekly.

Does not mean it was written from the ground up. It was not.

 

[Atlantean]

Pretty sure the actual operating system will only take up 3gbs maybe 4... also if anyone wants to find out for sure ask someone that has the beta (I know its out there, its all over torrent sites). I wish more games were made for OSX... I would switch over to that in a heartbeat.

 

[CTho9305]

Based on other things I've seen, I think the system requirements for Vista are requirements if you want to use the OS plus some applications. Vista itself doesn't require as much RAM as they specify, for example, but by setting the requirements this way, they can keep Dell or eMachines from putting 256MB in their low-end model and shipping it with Vista (consider how some vendors shipped XP systems with way too little RAM), and giving the customer a crappy experience. Similarly, a "Vista" experience probably assumes you buy some music and videos from Microsoft, and MS wouldn't want someone selling a machine that can't hold hundreds of dollars worth of that stuff.

 

[antsct]

Alot of people have to remember a lot of people use notebooks and they don't come with 200gb hard drives (usually 40gb - 60gb) especially here in Australia.