BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 10d, 4h, 35m | CPU: 26% | MEM: 2216MB of 3605MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Microsoft hopes to make Windows 7 use less disk space        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:23 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:45 pm

Posts
731

Location
Two lefts and a diagonal sidestep from where you are.

Favourite OS
Windows 7 M3 (6801)
source: One Microsoft Way

The latest post on the Engineering Windows 7 blog is about disk space and is written by Michael Beck, a program manager in the core OS deployment feature team. The Windows 7 team outlined tradeoffs between disk space and a few key features, and emphasized the reliability concerns that Windows Vista addressed in Windows XP. These justified disk space hogs include device drivers, hibernation support, the page file, international language fonts, logging, registry back up, and support for robust rollback and recovery after installing critical security and functionality updates (System Restore). The Windows 7 team is not just looking at the size of the system once deployed, but also how the system grows over time with logs, updates, backups, and service packs. Beck explains why disk space has suddenly become an issue with this upcoming release of Windows:

"Windows disk space consumption has trended larger over time. While not desirable, the degree to which it’s been allowed is due in large part to ever-increasing hard drive capacity, combined with a customer need and engineering focus that focused heavily on recoverability, data protection, increasing breadth of device support, and demand for innovative new features. However, the proliferation of Solid State Drives (SSDs) has challenged this trend, and is pushing us to consider disk footprint in a much more thoughtful way and take that into account for Windows 7.
Don't worry; reliability and recoverability features aren't going to get cut. Microsoft has simply looked at feedback, and concluded it needs to let Windows make smarter choices about disk usage, and help the user figure out what potentially reclaimable space is being consumed. These underlying changes do need to be implemented across all Windows editions, but unfortunately, there's no "one size fits all" approach for users:

Because we know that different customers will want to make different tradeoffs of disk space relative to recovery (especially on small footprint devices) with Windows 7, we want to make sure you have more control than you currently do to decide ahead of time how much disk space to use for these mechanisms, and we will also tune our defaults to be more sensitive to overall consumption due to the changing nature of storage.
Beck expects Windows 7's disk footprint to be smaller than Vista's. The goal is to make sure that Windows 7 will clean up sometime after successfully installing updates, won't install certain components that don't make sense based on the form factor, make System Restore by default keep a sensible number of backups instead of a "up to 15 percent of the disk," shrink the hiberfil.sys file size, and will remove unnecessary clutter as it accumulates. In short, better settings by default and more control for the user. Whether these aims will be achieved or not we will see soon enough, but the fact that Microsoft is taking it into consideration in the first place is a good sign. My next computer will likely be sporting a new SSD, so this decision is something I definitely welcome."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:49 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
Shouldnt be too difficult, just get rid of most of the useless crap the average person doesn't want, need or is ever likely to use. Why do we need tablet pc components on a desktop anyway? Why doe x64 have 2 versions of whatever taking up twice the space? Why can't I get rid of Windows Firewall and Windows Defender? I dont want them and dont use them, they just take up space doing nothing. I dont want Windows Movie maker either, yet there it is. I mean sure, provide them on disc as an OPTIONAL component, dont fill my HDD with pointless crap and not even give me the option to uninstall it. Also if I select English I dont need help files or anything else in Hungarian, Latvian, German, or any other language, just English.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:23 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:20 pm

Posts
164

Location
Where The Streets Have No Name

Favourite OS
Windows 7
I agree.

Shouldn't be too difficult. I wonder how low they'll really be able to get it down.

_________________
Image
http://www.christdaily.net - Where I go everyday.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:37 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
I have a 700gig SATA and really could care less :D

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:38 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
Great. I have 2 80gb sata in a striped array for a system drive and a 500gb sataII for storage and guess what, there's still no reason my Windows folder needs to be 16gb + all the crap in Program Files + all the crap in Program Files (x86). Windows is called bloatware for a good reason and its about time they started to address that. Unecessary clutter degrades drive performance regardless of how large your drive may be. Drive performance has a direct impact on overall system performance so by getting rid of the crap they can improve performance, something else Vista has taken a bashing over.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:03 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
Its not things like Movie Maker and additional languages that need to be stripped out, its all the unecessary services that your average home user doesn't know how to disable.
Hard drive space really shouldn't be a problem for most people (unless you have a small problem with pornography), its things like RAM & CPU usage where there is room for improvement.
However, with the increasing popularity of x64 processors, and the ever plummeting price of DDR2, I don't expect 7 to be less resource intensive than Vista.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:40 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
Winsxs needs an overhaul. Mine is over 9gb and there's everything in there from crap for japanese keyboards to copies of the dreamscene videos, most of which are redundant. Thats a fair bit of crap that needs to be searched through if you do a search for something on your c drive that isnt indexed and a load of unecessary data that probably needs shifting around during a defrag. Now while it may be more convenient to store every last component you may never use in ther on the off chance you need it, I would much prefer the older method of keeping it on the disc and sticking that in the drive so only those components that are required are written to the hdd. It would also mean backups would be far smaller and take less time to do as all that unimportant data doesnt have to be stored along with all the stuff you do actually need. I recon you could chop a good 5-6 gb just by optimizing winsxs folder alone.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:44 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
OG wrote:
Winsxs needs an overhaul. Mine is over 9gb and there's everything in there from crap for japanese keyboards to copies of the dreamscene videos, most of which are redundant. Thats a fair bit of crap that needs to be searched through if you do a search for something on your c drive that isnt indexed and a load of unecessary data that probably needs shifting around during a defrag. Now while it may be more convenient to store every last component you may never use in ther on the off chance you need it, I would much prefer the older method of keeping it on the disc and sticking that in the drive so only those components that are required are written to the hdd. It would also mean backups would be far smaller and take less time to do as all that unimportant data doesnt have to be stored along with all the stuff you do actually need. I recon you could chop a good 5-6 gb just by optimizing winsxs folder alone.

You seem like you'd be happier using Windows Server 2008...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:57 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
I would, but I'm not about to pay £400 for it and iirc should you attempt the illigitmate product activation you lose iis which I use and the control panel stops working. I suppose I could just reinstall it every 3 months. :P


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:29 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Yeh, the WinSxS thing really annoys me as well, mine's 8 GB on Vista Ultimate x64 and 20 MB on XP...and what's better in Vista than XP as a result of the extra 8 GB? Nothing :P The Windows\Installer directory is ridiculous as well, copies of MSI packages get placed in there when you install things, even if you run say a 300 MB game update, a copy of that is placed in there! What a waste of space! Yes, hard drives are massive these days but I like to have Windows on a separate partition so that you can format and reinstall it without losing any data. but even a 30 GB partition seems huge when you first install Vista but over time it just seems to get bigger and bigger (with System Restore turned off by the way, and nothing ever installed to the OS partition) and 30 GB starts to look small! one time when I ran Windows Update about 600 MB of space disappeared, whereas with XP or OS X the OS seems to stay a more constant size over time :S

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:03 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
OG wrote:
I would, but I'm not about to pay £400 for it and iirc should you attempt the illigitmate product activation you lose iis which I use and the control panel stops working. I suppose I could just reinstall it every 3 months. :P

Trial on Server 2008 is 60 days, so you'd be re-installing every 6 months.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:19 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:05 pm

Posts
638
jabster wrote:
OG wrote:
I would, but I'm not about to pay £400 for it and iirc should you attempt the illigitmate product activation you lose iis which I use and the control panel stops working. I suppose I could just reinstall it every 3 months. :P

Trial on Server 2008 is 60 days, so you'd be re-installing every 6 months.


Every 8 months, not 6 :) 60 days + 3 * extendable 60 days equals 240 days :)

And Microsoft has already made winsxs smaller. On Windows Server 2008 SP2 build 16497 it has 7,59GB, and on Windows Server 7 build 6801 one has only 5,47GB.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:34 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
965

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
This is why I love Linux so much; you can install it at 1.44 MB to as big as you want. Make Windows more like that (maybe not as drastic) and you're away!

If I was in charge, I would give way more options for installing; like just basic (mouse/display/network) drivers for generic systems, no window manager for servers, no software libraries for web-surfing machines, etc... I'd give a choice of all the past shell, too; I don't know about you but I would like the option of having Program Manager as my shell, it was a lot more simple.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:11 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
marktuson wrote:
This is why I love Linux so much; you can install it at 1.44 MB to as big as you want. Make Windows more like that (maybe not as drastic) and you're away!

If I was in charge, I would give way more options for installing; like just basic (mouse/display/network) drivers for generic systems, no window manager for servers, no software libraries for web-surfing machines, etc... I'd give a choice of all the past shell, too; I don't know about you but I would like the option of having Program Manager as my shell, it was a lot more simple.
That's why I love my AMIGA!!!! :D

OS3.1 is 4 MB with everything installed.... 3.9 is 15MB with working Internet and loads of other stuff. I want OS4 and PPC now...... :look


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS