Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
DSH

Hi
Vista needs that amount of disk space for the initial installation.

Will Denny MS-MVP Shell/User Please reply to the Newsgroup
Please reply to the Newgroups "D. Spencer Hines"

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:36:19 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

My install (business version) takes up just under 9 GB. That's after it was installed. Needs more room TO install when it expands cab files and makes backups, etc.. So the 15 GB free minimum Microsoft says you need is pretty close to minimum I guess.

"Initial Installation"...
And how much after that?
DSH
"Will Denny"

Hi
The disk space used after the installation goes down dependent on what has been installed - 9/10 GBs perhaps.

Will Denny MS-MVP Shell/User Please reply to the Newsgroup
Please reply to the Newgroups "D. Spencer Hines"

It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day and age of 500gb drives....I have Vista on a separate 60gb SATA drive and right now it only has ~20gb free, with nothing especially large on it other than a couple games, but that's why I have additional 310gb of space :-)

"Adam Albright"

This includes the space needed to copy files during the installation. This space is returned after the installation.

Ronnie Vernon Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
"D. Spencer Hines"

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you keep your applications on the same partition as the OS.
Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase.

Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space after installation is complete, depending on what is installed.
But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB.
What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it.
I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear them.
Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista.
I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user but Microsoft needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista and "Transparent Windows" and other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it.
TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista in bullet form, like this:
1.
2.
3.
And so forth.
I haven't seen it.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Do your own research! How are the users here supposed to know your likes, dislikes, and how you work. After you get the list together, then you can come back and tell us the ten best reasons you like Vista.
Windows Vista: Home Page: microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/default.mspx

Ronnie Vernon Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
"D. Spencer Hines"

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and stockholder.

I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question why I and others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question.
For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded for a single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code, I'm still fairly active in creating web content and since I also author a lot of DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS performs. As simple as that.
While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't see it that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift and a needed one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and a bit behind the times. Vista, especially if your system can support Aero is slicker, visually. I guess that's a benefit, but hardly one that justifies the cost of upgrading.
Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I do like is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop files you get a tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder you're over which avoids a long time annoyance of mine, hoving over a folder and if you do it hundreds of times a day it was too easy to be in a hurry and "drop" the file in the folder above or below your intented target. Now that's less likely.
Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So is how details about where your files are for example when clicking on Start then All Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to the right list that takes over your monitor. Now each category opens in the same window and scrolls in place. Takes a little getting used to, but better once you get use to the change.
Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and actually tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and give more specific information like when installing new hardware, information in Event logs is better, Control Panel has undergone a major face lift.
I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't had time to explore yet. These and any one of many little things may be enough for somebody to consider upgrading a good idea. Asking to make a list is simply too difficult not knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in XP and saying if or not they've been fixed, or made worse.
One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing UAC on users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to discover how to turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn it on if you want it.
I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its pissing off a lot of users.

"D. Spencer Hines"

[Features new to Windows Vista] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Saucy For email: guidsaucy at hotmail dot com

Keith Schaefer wrote:

Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating system.
My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive.
Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time.
Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for it.
It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space.
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup
>>> Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

"Ken Blake, MVP"

OMG... you're (our) age is showing... I still have an old ad cut out of a magazine for the 1st "PC" I ever bought. It was an "Epson IBM Compatible Hard Drive Computer" sheeesh - they didn't even have model #'s back then I guess.
Ad reads: "The Color System that does it all" << back then "color" meant RGB "Combines a single 360KB 5.25" floppy disc drive with a 20Mb hard drive! "With a 10/4.77MHz 8088 Microprocessor!" "Can store up to 10,000 pages of information!" "Contains five available expansion slots" << only problem back then was there was nothing to expand TO "Includes PFS: First Choice software" "Reg. $1,299.89 - Yours for only $899.99!" no mention whatsoever of memory - probably only 640K if I recall DOS came on like [4] 5.25" floppies

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:11:24 -0000, "Robert Moir" wrote:

True enough, I gave Windows a 50 GB partition to play with.
What gripes me as a old dog seat of the pants programmer from way back is Windows is beyond bloated. Far beyond. Somebody said 500 million lines of code? I don't know if that's true, but BIG sure describes Windows Vista.
A sobering thought... many of your are probably too young to remember or weren't even alive when NASA way back in 1969 landed men on the moon. The computer onboard that got them there and back (actually there were three) had less computing power than today's average desktop caculator.
Back then "programmers" knew how to write tight code. They had too, not much memory to play with. Today's generation who fancy themselves "software engineers" don't know how to write tight compact code. They only know how to write bloatware and need hundreds of thousands of lines of code, sometimes millions. This is progress?
No it isn't for one simple reason. We're all human. Humans make mistakes. Its in our nature. The point is the more lines of code you have the more prone you are to introducing mistakes. If Vista is anywhere near as big as some claim that means even if it is 99% error free there are still many thousands, likely tens of thousands of lines of buggy programming, much of it yet still to surface. Hackers will find it and exploit it. Take that to the bank.

One poster who complained loudly about Vista's 18GB of space on his computer finally admitted that 6GB of that was his own emails and the backup of those emails left behind by the Vista upgrade process. On top of that, he has a 120GB raid drive on his PC. I wouldn't run Vista on a 120GB drive. Not that you can't do it but that's just so lame. If you really want to have the state of the art OS, wouldn't you like to have at least a current model drive size?
Dale
"D. Spencer Hines"

Hi Adam:
A printout of the Fortran used to land the LEM is on display at the Museum of Science in Boston, as well as the core memory from on the onboard computer. In those days they were still using magnetic core technology.
Your comparison to Windows is incorrect. The Fortran that landed the LEM didn't have a GUI, a media player, a web browser, a defragmenter, a firewall, etc. etc. which users demand today. Heck, it didn't need to do anything other than its specific purpose.
Earl Grey
Adam Albright wrote:

Nonsense!
The Burden Of Proof is on Microsoft to show US why we should buy Vista.
WE are the clients, the consumers and the customers THEY have the obligation to sell US NOT the other way around.
VERY Poor Marketing Rollout for VISTA.
The Rollout for even Windows 95 was far better.
Heads should roll at Redmond.
DSH
"Ronnie Vernon MVP"

Balderdash!
It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware Manufactures each scratching the other's back.
Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it will do that XP can't THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware.
Capabilities & Limitations...
BOTH the Upside & the Downside.
"Transparent Windows" won't cut it.
But you don't seem to be able to do that.
I have 300 GB of disk space that's not the issue.
DSH
"Ken Blake, MVP"

Well-Stated!
Bravo Zulu!
DSH
"Adam Albright"

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

You won't hear them from me. I'm hardly a fan of Vista.
It does have some nice ideas, even if they might not be implemented all that well. It does have some incremental improvements over XP in some areas, as well it might given how long it took to make. You'll have to move or give up on Windows eventually if you want to keep running new apps.
But compelling reasons to buy at the moment? Let me know if you ever find any.

Yours is a very honest, straightforward answer the first one I've received....
After all the pompous bafflegab.
Thank you kindly.
Comments below.
DSH
"Adam Albright"

Fair Enough.

Bingo!
I use the Windows Classical look. I don't want my computer to look like a jukebox. "Slicker" is not something I cherish either in friends, women, politicians or operating systems.

That's Nice An enhancement.

I prefer manuals which have been deep-sixed unless we pay extra.

I installed IE7 TWICE and pulled it OFF twice. HORRIBLE Nag worse than three mothers-in-law at dinner. <g>
Now, Windows Update tells me I have HIDDEN a Critical Update and will surely Go To Hell with viruses and Trojans beseiging me.
I don't need that. I am the master of my OWN computer.

If they are TRUE improvements they will be obvious. Take Microsoft Windows Truefonts, for example - THEY were an item worthy of listing on the TEN bullet list at the time and finished Bitstream Fonts for most of us.

PRECISELY! That was similar to the Chinese Communists taking over Hong Kong. VERY POOR MARKETING and STRATEGY by Microsoft HEADS SHOULD ROLL. You simply don't treat Americans like that or anyone else for that matter. I ran into it on IE7 and trashed it.
Bill Gates' departure from the hands-on led to these disasters?

Too slow for me. That's why I'll be waiting for SP2 AND the software manufactures to catch up, change their drivers, work out bugs and so forth.
You were RIGHT you didn't even come up with FIVE Good Reasons. <g>
But Thanks Anyway.
Cheers,
DSH

I find it interesting that people on here are so upset about how microsoft is marketing Vista. They obviously did their job as you do know about it and people are talking about it. What are you hoping for? Better commercials? LOL
Jeff
"D. Spencer Hines"

BINGO!
My Sentiments Too.
DSH
"Robert Moir"

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:15:46 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

I don't get upset with how much disk space it takes up, I do get annoyed how bloated Vista is because we both know the bigger it is the more lines of code. The more lines of code, the more chance for bugs.
Maybe a useful suggestion would be for the Windows installer to offer more customization at initial setup. I think it pretty much has always been full speed ahead, load it up. I know there are ways to limit what gets installed, but I'm talking what the typical person does.
I can remember several years ago I was trying a version of Linux. I saw a fancy Linux suite package in the store, couldn't resist and ran home with it. I had the disk space so I said to myself what the heck, this package came with 8 CD's of stuff, I paid for it, may as well put it all on. I know, that was kind of dumb. <grin>
Well for the next 90 minutes I sat in front of my PC feeding the beast first this CD, then the next one, then going back to a earlier CD and what seemed like a endless parade of menu pages coming up on screen.
Near the end it said insert CD #7. I popped it in and oops, the instructions were now totally in German. That kind of spoiled my day. Trying again I did notice the manual said I can choose to install what I want as I go along. The Linux installer first loaded up necessary files. That took maybe 15 minutes. Then it showed a nice menu with check box after check box of what I could install or skip. Shame Windows don't try that approach. First get the bare necessary files unpacked, installed, try to boot, if successful then present a menu and work its way down a huge laundry list of features you can accept or skip.

johnm wrote:

My first puter was the Sinclair ZX 81. 1 KB of memory :) I then bought a 16 KB memory upgrade. How cool is that!
..::[ Hz ]::.

Recte:
Yours is a very honest, straightforward answer the first one I've received....
After all the pompous bafflegab.
Thank you kindly.
Comments below.
DSH
"Adam Albright"

Fair Enough.

Bingo!
I use the Windows Classical look. I don't want my computer to look like a jukebox. "Slicker" is not something I cherish either in friends, women, politicians or operating systems.

That's Nice An enhancement.

I prefer manuals which have been deep-sixed unless we pay extra.

I installed IE7 TWICE and pulled it OFF twice. HORRIBLE Nag worse than three mothers-in-law at dinner. <g>
Now, Windows Update tells me I have HIDDEN a Critical Update and will surely Go To Hell with viruses and Trojans besieging me.
I don't need that. I am the master of my OWN computer.

If they are TRUE improvements they will be obvious. Take Microsoft Windows TrueType Fonts, for example - THEY were an item worthy of listing on the TEN bullet list at the time and finished Bitstream Fonts for most of us.

PRECISELY! That was similar to the Chinese Communists taking over Hong Kong. VERY POOR MARKETING and STRATEGY by Microsoft HEADS SHOULD ROLL.
You simply don't treat Americans like that or anyone else for that matter. I ran into it on IE7 and trashed it.
Bill Gates' departure from the hands-on led to these disasters?

Too slow for me. That's why I'll be waiting for SP2 AND the software manufactures to catch up, change their drivers, work out bugs and so forth.
You were RIGHT you didn't even come up with FIVE Good Reasons. <g>
But Thanks Anyway.
Cheers,
DSH

"D. Spencer Hines"

Loved it.... ROFL

ROFL ....again

Can you just imagine how slick it would be if the operating system could use the alphabet, instead of just a paltry 0 or 1. That'd open up a whole new world, and increase our speed and capacity 13-fold.
"Ken Blake, MVP"

johnm wrote:

Age? 20 years ago I had been working professionally with computers for 25 years. The first computer I worked on professionally was an IBM 1401 in 1962.
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup

You guys are way late into the game :).
My first hard drive for my first PC (not my first personal computer) was a 10 MB for 400 dollars.
Dale
"johnm"

I installed Ubuntu a few weeks ago. It didn't offer many options about what to install. It installed all sorts of features I didn't ask for and don't need.
Dale
"Adam Albright"