Windows7 takes 10GB and grows exponentially as it keeps two copies of almost every system file that cannot be deleted.
I recently installed an old XP Home CD in a VM with a 4GB disk. The only way I could get enough space for SP3 + updates was to compress the disk.
AFAIK, there is no easy way to resize the primary partition without reinstalling the OS or using third-party partitioning software, so I get by with my 4GB primary and a 2GB secondary for applications.
And I thought my days of running "Disk Cleanup" and manually cleaning out "\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution/Download" were over...
Are you including the swap file in the 4GB, because I am not.
I'm also referring to a clean new install for 1GB vs 10GB
10GB is a low usage ime. Installer directory alone approaches that on my system, much less winsxs.
Also, not sure what you mean by recovering from deletion... How could any system recover from that?
I disagree with this.
I agree ten years is a long life for an OS now but sometime in the future that won't be true. The point is that the OS is a platform that should be stable and supported for years, if not decades. At some point the underlying technology and operation principles of an OS will plateau or reach diminished returns and a new OS will not be needed or just not worth the trouble.
Fast tracking OS releases today is really bad for all (except MS which is why they do it). Vista came out 5 years after XP but it was not ready for prime time. Win7 came out 3 years after Vista and Win8 is slated for 3 years after the release of Win7. This 3 year OS cycle is insanity. One reason no one wanted to give up XP was because it worked, it was reasonably stable and no one wanted the pain and cost of moving to a new OS with all the inevitable driver and app problems. I'd bet that most of the new "features" of Win8 are really improved apps that would work fine on Win7 or completely unnecessary. Sell new features in the old OS but make them standard in the new OS and release the new OS on approximately 5 year (and eventually longer) cycles when the fundamental functions of the OS need to change to improve security, efficiency or operation, not because MS needs revenue.
Win7 is a good OS, a worthy successor to XP, but we aren't even out of the Win7 adoption period (by users, hardware manufactures and ISV's) and we are suppose accept Win8 and stir the whole pot again? I suspect that Win8 is going to have the same marketing problem that (in part) submarined Vista. People don't care about Operating Systems, they run them to run Applications.
Every Windows upgrade feels like a brand new operating system. In contrast, every new OS X release feels more like an iterative update.
In a sense, OS X has been your ten year operating system, just with rolling updates.
Most businesses I work with are now moving to Windows 7 after skipping Vista entirely.
I switched over to win7 on the same laptop and they gave me 4GB or ram. Using the same software, the system lagged so much I had to go back and upgrade to 6GB of ram just to get the PC running at the xp-level of performance.
I also haven't ran XP with less than 2gb of ram since 2005, so I don't know what kind of slowdown xp experiences under resource constraints.
But my perceived performance equilibrium was about 2gb with xp to 6gb with win7.
6GB sounds excessive for that situation, but if your IGP is getting testy about system memory, it seems likely that it'd require a hell of a lot to simulate decent behavior.
(Typed on my Toshiba Win7 netbook, with a 1.6GHz Atom, 1GB of RAM, and Aero running without a hitch.)
Strangely enough, Windows 3.1 sure seems a lot smaller and snappier than Windows 7...
I also used Vista for 3 years, and recently moved to 7. It boots much quicker and uses less resources on a consistent basis.
Of course I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data but I haven't heard anyone contradict what I said.
Vista is what drove me to Mac OS, Windows 7 does not seem like much of an improvement in my limited testing. I hated the fact that Microsoft would just move everything around for no good reason, so I had to relearn to do everything I could do in XP. I managed with Dos v3.3 -> XP.
Also, I am glad they implemented it. It gives people who just click things, like my girlfriend, pause. It makes them double check what is happening.
We had to skip over Vista completely, as a year after it was released there were still loads of applications that didn't work on it (including our VPN software, which boggles the mind as it's not exactly like Vista was a surprise).
We had a few security applications we use day-to-day that prevented us from even installing XP Service Pack 2, as the changes to the raw socket support broke them.
Were it not for Microsoft preventing newer versions of IE from being installed, I think we'd probably stay on XP forever.
Have you researched alternatives?
As to the applications which wouldn't work with XP SP2, WebInspect was a specific one (they eventually fixed it), but I recall there were a few others (basically any scanner that used raw sockets).
As to researching alternatives, I don't work in IT at my company, but if you're testing out a new version of the operating system that you deploy to all of your employees, and the VPN client doesn't work, you don't research alternative VPN solutions. You just decide to hold off on upgrading several hundred thousand systems until everything works.
Rule number 1 for corporate IT: Keep operations going (i.e.: make sure everything works).
At some point you see that Microsoft is releasing a new version of their operating system:
1.) You build some test images to see what the upgrade process would be like
2.) You discover that your VPN client doesn't work with the new version, so you see if the vendor has an updated version that works.
3.) It turns out that they don't, so you hold off with the upgrade until such time as they do.
4.) Enough time goes by where to where you decide that it doesn't make sense at this point to bother with this version of the operating system, so you decide to just skip it (and when you ask around, it turns out a really large amount of other enterprises are doing the same thing).
I've worked at a programmer at companies where you weren't allowed to touch Widget X because it works, so I understand the mindset, but more often than not in programming departments the focus is on shipping so nothing is off the table completely. I guess I just don't understand why IT has a different mindset.
Making the VPN work would require spending millions of dollars in hardware, as well as the deployment of said new hardware in thousands of offices across the globe.
That's one option...The other option is to not upgrade to Windows Vista.
I don't understand what you mean by "mindset". The "mindset" of IT is to provide operational support. That means that they don't decide to upend the network infrastructure of the company willy-nilly for no discernible positive benefit.
Even if there weren't serious network infrastructure issues involved, I wouldn't dare do an OS rollout like this.
This isn't a new version of some webapp you can just upload to a server and be done with. You're talking about fundamentally altering the operation of thousands of desktops and laptops around the world being put to diverse use by people who are very probably not technically minded.
And it would be impractical at best to upgrade all of that over the network on a weekend. Every piece of hardware would have to be turned on and connected to a high-speed link with appropriate netboot infrastructure. That's not going to happen.
QA can't catch everything, so rolling it out all at once means the entire company goes apeshit on IT all at once. Watch the senior IT people walk out the door because they don't have to put up with the abuse and can find a new job. Watch the young and inexperienced IT people have nervous breakdowns and take months to address all the problems, possibly costing the company millions in the process...
" Direct3D 10, for example, only supports Windows Vista and Windows 7; it's not available on Windows XP. The continued widespread usage of the old operating system makes it much harder for developers to depend on these new features: every time they do, they rule out the ability to sell to half of all current Windows users, and that's a bitter pill to swallow."
How many devs who would like to use the features offered in D3D 10 but not 9 are realistically going to be selling to people running XP? An outdated OS with outdated hardware and users who are behind the curve on upgrades does not seem to be a market that people implementing rich graphical features would be targeting.
Just to give you an example of some things that make no sense:
-shaking windows minimizes everything
-moving the window to the top of the screen maximizes it (its easier for me to just click the box in the corner, and now I can't place windows across the top edge)
-window explorer went from a couple large buttons to a ton of small buttons
-the clickable area of a directory in windows explorer in list view is about half the size, making it very difficult to right click a directory unless its already selected (something done a lot with tortoise svn)
-control settings has become so complex its almost unusable
I won't go on, I know from experience that you either vehemently agree or vehemently disagree.
edit: I should add: I used XP for 10 years then switched over to win7 last year. I am not a mac or linux fanboy. I recently switch to osx full time at home, and use XP to play games. I could not be happier with that setup.
It might make sense to shell out $200k/year for a few years, while gradually rolling out upgrades to more recent versions.
Windows 7 GUI is 5 times slower than XP and has bugs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM (Windows 7 GUI slowness)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFgYylqP_U (Windows 7 GUI slowness: file explorer)
Windows 7 uses 5 times as much resources:
XP: 233MHz, 64MB RAM, 1.5 GB.
7: 1GHz, 1GB RAM, 16 GB.
Windows 7 is faster and much, much nicer on any computer made in the last 2-3 years. I'm not a Windows fan by any means, but choosing to run XP over 7 in 2011 is incomprehensible.
Hardware accelerated transparency effects on the desktop (if you're lucky and not on an Intel chipset)
Just think what the next 10years might bring - multicolored keyboard CAPSLOCK lights?
Perhaps if Windows 8 were to break all your old apps, and look utterly radically different, then people might find it easier to believe that it was genuinely something new? Maybe that could work.