# Why is Windows so big and heavy?



## DMGrier

So I just installed openSuse 11.4 on my wife's computer and I noticed how much less HDD space it uses and I noticed the for memory consumption even with Banshee media player going and chrome web browser I am only using  430 MB of memory and when I was using gnome I saw it go as low as 180 MB of memory. So I guess where I am going with this is why if there are OS out there that use less HDD and memory why is M$ still building them so heavy?


----------



## speedyink

DMGrier said:


> So I just installed openSuse 11.4 on my wife's computer and I noticed how much less HDD space it uses and I noticed the for memory consumption even with Banshee media player going and chrome web browser I am only using  430 MB of memory and when I was using gnome I saw it go as low as 180 MB of memory. So I guess where I am going with this is why if there are OS out there that use less HDD and memory why is M$ still building them so heavy?



OSX is just as heavy.  I think the main thing is it's trying to be the everything OS, whereas linux is usually more of a stripped OS.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Well one thing that separates Mac OS from Windows is Mac is optimized to run on the Apple hardware that Apple puts out. It doesn't run on anything other than that (except in the case of Hackintosh). Windows however is installed and has to work on basically every piece of hardware out there, and each piece of hardware is different from the other.


----------



## DMGrier

As far as I know I have never had any hardware support problems with any of the major Linux distribution's that use less resources then Windows along with less disc space and they in comparison to windows, Linux distributions come with very similar software when you look at the basic media packs, file management, Linux has a decent full free office program and etc. I see where you guys are coming from but I just do not understand why windows uses up so much disc space and uses more resources when Linux offers similar hardware support, just as much if not more pre-installed software and 32 bit and 64 bit systems.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

Let me guess...Windows 8 will require 10 GB of HDD space minimum xD ?

I remember back in Windows 95 and 98 days.Those days were good.OS was a LOT smaller than today and still you were able to do everything.

Windows today takes a lot of HDD space because Microsoft is putting a lot of software in it while before many years they offered all that stuff as a separate things which you were able to download and install.And that was better because on that way you would have only the things you want and need while today OS has become like speedyink said "everything OS" and you have SO MANY things you don't even want or need lol.

That is why I am still on XP and will stay on it for the next MANY years.Hell XP is actually the last Microsoft OS that fits on the CD lol while others need DVD minimum.Soon they will need double-layer DVD disks minimum to fit.The hell with that lmao!


----------



## Motoxrdude

You have to remember that windows tends to prefetches a lot of data into the ram too.


----------



## voyagerfan99

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Let me guess...Windows 8 will require 10 GB of HDD space minimum xD ?
> 
> I remember back in Windows 95 and 98 days.Those days were good.OS was a LOT smaller than today and still you were able to do everything.
> 
> Windows today takes a lot of HDD space because Microsoft is putting a lot of software in it while before many years they offered all that stuff as a separate things which you were able to download and install.And that was better because on that way you would have only the things you want and need while today OS has become like speedyink said "everything OS" and you have SO MANY things you don't even want or need lol.
> 
> That is why I am still on XP and will stay on it for the next MANY years.Hell XP is actually the last Microsoft OS that fits on the CD lol while others need DVD minimum.Soon they will need double-layer DVD disks minimum to fit.The hell with that lmao!



Times are changing my friend. Things grow with evolution. Hell back in the day a 100MB hard drive was two inches thick and cost $2,000! As things evolve, the space required to house them increases.


----------



## FuryRosewood

voyagerfan99 said:


> Times are changing my friend. Things grow with evolution. Hell back in the day a 100MB hard drive was two inches thick and cost $2,000! As things evolve, the space required to house them increases.


QFT

Things will change...and harddrives are big and cheap...ram is cheap...so why bother noting such a thing as the OS getting 'heavier' when hardware is getting stronger?


----------



## Okedokey

FuryRosewood said:


> QFT
> 
> Things will change...and harddrives are big and cheap...ram is cheap...so why bother noting such a thing as the OS getting 'heavier' when hardware is getting stronger?



Exactly.


----------



## Aastii

I don't see the logic in "this OS uses less resources, ergo is better". Why run XP when you can go back and run NT4, I mean for god's sake, XP is such a resource hog. NT4 works, so what is the point in upgrading 

Windows tries to be a jack of all trades, mostly because it has to be. You look at most Linux distro's, if you want to do something 9 times out of 10 you will have to tweak something or create a script or do something yourself to have it work. Windows automates this and has to be compatible with a hell of a lot of software and basically dumb everything down for the average user that doesn't have a clue what they are doing, except for how to use Facebook


----------



## Troncoso

Yep Yep. Why bother upgrading a PC if you don't like an OS to utilize it's resources? 
Windows 7 asks for 1ghz cpu, 1gb of ram, and up to 20gb of hard drive space.

You almost can't buy a pc or laptop that can't meet those specifications. Even netbooks have that.

Why should microsoft even bother evolving their OS if we don't like that it takes more resources? How can they possibly create new OS's that don't.

And 95/98 could do everything in their time, when programs and hardware were designed to work with them. Now they are severely outdated  and can't do anything. You will stop using XP sooner than you think as it is losing support and fast. It is a great OS, but it as well, is becoming outdated. The technology it was designed to run on is long gone. If you want hardware support so that everything works properly, you'' have to upgrade.


----------



## DMGrier

I think many of you guys miss the big point of I am asking what differences is there between some of the Linux OS and Windows in design when I don't see a difference in available software that comes pre-installed (actually Linux I think has more pre-installed) that explains the large use of hard drive space.

Plus I do not own a desk top due to how mobile I am I own a laptop so yes system resources are very important, I can run a digital work station on 4 GB of ram due to Linux low system resources were as Windows it cannot be done without losing some of the software functions, that is one case and I am sure if I spent about 30 minutes on google I could find more software that is in the same scenario.

I am not trying to start problems on here, it is pure curiosity.


----------



## speedyink

DMGrier said:


> I think many of you guys miss the big point of I am asking what differences is there between some of the Linux OS and Windows in design when I don't see a difference in available software that comes pre-installed (actually Linux I think has more pre-installed) that explains the large use of hard drive space.
> 
> Plus I do not own a desk top due to how mobile I am I own a laptop so yes system resources are very important, I can run a digital work station on 4 GB of ram due to Linux low system resources were as Windows it cannot be done without losing some of the software functions, that is one case and I am sure if I spent about 30 minutes on google I could find more software that is in the same scenario.
> 
> I am not trying to start problems on here, it is pure curiosity.



The size difference doesn't come in the form of software, it comes in the form of behind the scenes things that are designed for ease of use.  Including a mass amount of drivers, help files, and bundled security and so on.

Yes, Linux is highly efficient, but it isn't exactly something you'd get your mother to install on her own.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> I don't see the logic in "this OS uses less resources, ergo is better". Why run XP when you can go back and run NT4, I mean for god's sake, XP is such a resource hog. NT4 works, so what is the point in upgrading


I think it's more about using less resources for given usage than just plain using less resources. Given a Windows and Linux installations that both have all the software and tools I need to work effectively, my Linux installations take up (on average) only a fifth of the space Windows needs and generally uses noticeably less memory, not to mention being generally faster and more responsive. Sure, Windows may have all kinds of magical things to make it better for the computer illiterate, but all those things are useless to me and only get in the way. Having to haul them around really doesn't help me.

Hard drive usage may not matter to modern mechanical hard drives, but given that some people (such as myself) want to have a go at SSDs which come with a rather high cost per gigabyte, I think the size argument is perfectly valid.


----------



## mx344

Aastii said:


> I don't see the logic in "this OS uses less resources, ergo is better". Why run XP when you can go back and run NT4, I mean for god's sake, XP is such a resource hog. NT4 works, so what is the point in upgrading
> 
> Windows tries to be a jack of all trades, mostly because it has to be. You look at most Linux distro's, if you want to do something 9 times out of 10 you will have to tweak something or create a script or do something yourself to have it work. Windows automates this and has to be compatible with a hell of a lot of software and basically dumb everything down for the average user that doesn't have a clue what they are doing, except for how to use Facebook



exactly  Thats why I love windows 

@hackapelite: Its valid only if you use the ssd as your general drive, but why not just use the ssd as you 'os' drive, and get a 500gig secondary drive for all your files?


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> @hackapelite: Its valid only if you use the ssd as your general drive, but why not just use the ssd as you 'os' drive, and get a 500gig secondary drive for all your files?


There are several possible reasons. I, for example, happen to be using a laptop as my main computer, and I can only have one drive in at a time, so it hast to be one or the other. And even in situations where it is possible to have two drives, Windows doesn't let you have the user folders stored outside your C drive so one would have to go out of their way to store their stuff on another device.



> Windows tries to be a jack of all trades, mostly because it has to be. You look at most Linux distro's, if you want to do something 9 times out of 10 you will have to tweak something or create a script or do something yourself to have it work.


I'll just point out that this is somewhat untrue. While Linux does sometimes require more tweaking (some distros and configurations do, some don't), usually it's at most 1 out of 10 times you have to do any more tweaking than you would on a normal Windows system (mostly personal preferences/customisation things). I have never had the need to make any scripts to get things working, though I did once have to edit one to get Apache running automatically on system startup (9 out of 10 people don't run Apache on their home computers).



> Windows automates this


Automates what? How?



> and has to be compatible with a hell of a lot of software


Has to be, yes. Thenagain, Linux could be compatible with a hell lot of software as it is, without being bigger at all, but the problem is less software is developed for it, not that its small size makes it a less viable platform for supporting a large selection of software (from developer's perspective, of course; from business point of view it'd be daft to develop solely for a platform mostly used by free software fanatics who damn all things binary). It is true Windows is a lot better at supporting old software than Linux (or any other OS for that matter), and all this legacy support might well make up a notable portion of what some people call bloat, but even with all this legacy support cut out I don't think Windows would come close to being as small as Linux is while being as functional.


----------



## User0one

Windows so big and heavy is pretty irrelevant these days with new Hardware being what it is.

I have a Linux computer for messing around with, but things like mp3 players, Video editing Hardware, phones, camcorders, Cameras don't work with linux or are too hard to get working that most people will return to Windows. 

I recently helped someone install XP on a Linux netbook just because the lady couldn't figure out how to Video and voice Chat with her friends.

I remember when the first ipods came out back in 2001, it didn't work with Windows 98, unless you used 3rd party non apple software to load up the thing with songs. I found it amazing how many people upgraded to XP just because of the ipod. Microsoft should have paid Apple royalties on that. LOL


----------



## speedyink

When you install windows, everything is pretty much good to go, your hardware 9 times out of 10 will have their drivers preinstalled, 3d theme is included, high res wallpapers, there's tons of shit included to get you up and running right out of the box.

I completely agree Linux is great, it's efficient, and it makes the most of the hardware, but it does require you to set it up and customize it to the way you want it.  3d themes, hardware drivers, decent high res wallpapers and others have to be added to mold it into your preferences.  The upside is you get exactly what you want, the downside you have to work to get it.  Experienced users will be able to do this fast and efficiently, but new users will get confused and frustrated trying to accomplish a fully set up machine.


----------



## DMGrier

I have installed Windows on three different laptops and actually more painful cause it is always a hunt for drivers while major Linux distros usually find it for you or they are already included. Not to mention I don't know why but Windows does not like you doing all your Windows updates at once on a new install system and I do not know why.

Also most major linux distros are compatible with most camcorders, printers and even mp3 players. As for software there are plenty and honestly my wife is the typical end user and she uses opensuse and find it easier to use and more stable. I have installed quiet a few Linux Flavors for end users and 90% of the find it easier to use and prefer it to Windows.

It is a matter of choice and those who say Windows is easier usually have little to know experience with Linux. openSuse, Linux Mint and Ubuntu and many more have the same tools and software as Windows.

So as I expected no good answer, I will rule in the fact that it is heavy and poorly designed due to the fact people will continue to buy it no matter how bad it gets.


----------



## speedyink

DMGrier said:


> I have installed Windows on three different laptops and actually more painful cause it is always a hunt for drivers while major Linux distros usually find it for you or they are already included. Not to mention I don't know why but Windows does not like you doing all your Windows updates at once on a new install system and I do not know why.



Hmm, bizarre, I've had the opposite experience with Ubuntu and Mandriva.  I couldn't for the life of me find video drivers for my laptop for either of them.  Mandriva flatout refused to install on my desktop, while Ubuntu installed fine.  I liked Ubuntu on it actually, though my desktop is mainly for games so windows seemed like a better choice.

I've installed windows on countless machines, and from Vista onwards I've had very little work to do in the way of drivers.


----------



## tremmor

the only way you will get a lightweight operating system is to write in machine language. with an assembler. that will never happen. sitting there with a debugger and not to mention how to harness and connect these routines together to work with all the people associated with it. they use languages and compilers that are not the most efficient and can be long and sloppy after compiling. Faster machines make up for it. 
thats the only diff.


----------



## Okedokey

hackapelite said:


> I think it's more about using less resources for given usage than just plain using less resources. ... and generally uses noticeably less memory, not to mention being generally faster and more responsive.



Linux overcommitts memory, so it actually will use the same amount of RAM as Windows, it just runs the (albeit very small) chance of crashing if all applications/services called for their share at the same time.  With Windows, this cannot happen.  This is the difference.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Linux overcommitts memory, so it actually will use the same amount of RAM as Windows, it just runs the (albeit very small) chance of crashing if all applications/services called for their share at the same time. With Windows, this cannot happen. This is the difference.


Interesting. I'm probably going to set my kernel to never overcommit and see how that affects my memory usage.


----------



## DMGrier

speedyink said:


> Hmm, bizarre, I've had the opposite experience with Ubuntu and Mandriva.  I couldn't for the life of me find video drivers for my laptop for either of them.  Mandriva flatout refused to install on my desktop, while Ubuntu installed fine.  I liked Ubuntu on it actually, though my desktop is mainly for games so windows seemed like a better choice.
> 
> I've installed windows on countless machines, and from Vista onwards I've had very little work to do in the way of drivers.



yeah the most recent was I installed Windows on a Vaio, then I had to install every driver then I started to do Windows updats and half way through the computer crashed to a black screen then Windows tried to fix the hard drive which after a hour I said screw it and re-installed Windows again, the drivers again and a second round of updates which I had to do again cause for what ever reason it would skip them during the first time I updated it.

When I have installed either Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora or openSuse the only thing I have ever had to do is install software I preferred cause I do not always like the software they come with.


----------



## speedyink

DMGrier said:


> yeah the most recent was I installed Windows on a Vaio, then I had to install every driver then I started to do Windows updats and half way through the computer crashed to a black screen then Windows tried to fix the hard drive which after a hour I said screw it and re-installed Windows again, the drivers again and a second round of updates which I had to do again cause for what ever reason it would skip them during the first time I updated it.
> 
> When I have installed either Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora or openSuse the only thing I have ever had to do is install software I preferred cause I do not always like the software they come with.



Hmm, I guess there's too many factors to all have the same experiences.


----------

