Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

but how is this a solution?

Windows checks to see if there's enough space....there is not.

now what? the update doesn't run and depending on the type of update, doesn't patch a critical vulnerability in their system?

7 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It isn't.

 

Basically.

 

But fuck Microsoft for trying something to ensure that doesn't happen, apparently.

Well... 2 things.

 

1) It seems to me like the 7GB of space can not be moved unless you do what I suggested and create NTFS junction points, which I am sure Microsoft isn't happy about. If they made it so that you could plug in a USB memory stick, microSD card, or just set the reserved space to another hard drive then it would be far easier to fix for people. Requiring it to be 7GB on C seems like a limitation that serves no purpose and will just cause issues.

 

2) If your updates are 7GB then you are doing something wrong. I think it's easy to look at 1TB hard drives and think that 7GB isn't that much space, but it is. The reason people think that is because they are used to very bloated things. The entire Windows 10 installation media for version 1809 is 4.5GB. That means that the spaced reserved for updates is so large, that you can fit 1.5 copies of the entire Windows 10 installation in it. That's insane.

[Uttamattamakin]

11 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Windows 10 can be installed on 16GB powered system.

It uses compression system, so that not only you have Windows 10, but also some free space.

That said, I never saw it, personally, in action, and don't know what this "free" space is.

Looking online very quickly, it seems that people managed to update Windows 8 to 10 on their 16GB powered tablet.

 

True... when it first came out.  From the sound of things now if they tried to clean install windows 10 on such devices it would not work.  Since a clean install will now look to reserve that 7 GB. 

[Uttamattamakin]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well... 2 things.

1) It seems to me like the 7GB of space can not be moved unless you do what I suggested and create NTFS junction points, which I am sure Microsoft isn't happy about.

Basically that was the trick for putting the One Drive folder onto a removable device such as a SD card.  (Yeah eventually your SD card would not be writable any more... but hey... That makes it a backup copy!) 

 

Quote

2) If your updates are 7GB then you are doing something wrong. I think it's easy to look at 1TB hard drives and think that 7GB isn't that much space, but it is. The reason people think that is because they are used to very bloated things. The entire Windows 10 installation media for version 1809 is 4.5GB. That means that the spaced reserved for updates is so large, that you can fit 1.5 copies of the entire Windows 10 installation in it. That's insane.

THIS.  This is it right here.  There is nothing that should need to be updated that would take up so much space.   An update that big isn't an update... that is a whole new OS.  That would be an upgrade from windows 10 to windows X or something.

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

but how is this a solution?

Windows checks to see if there's enough space....there is not.

now what? the update doesn't run and depending on the type of update, doesn't patch a critical vulnerability in their system?

 

 

 

Inform the user that he should free up space. End of problem. BTW if an update needs that much space then its time to abandon the software because it is a sign of severe incompetence on the dev's side.

[RejZoR]

43 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Inform the user that he should free up space. End of problem. BTW if an update needs that much space then its time to abandon the software because it is a sign of severe incompetence on the dev's side.

Who ever said it's a space for single update? Do you think new seasonal builds are 200MB in size? What if more updates are delivered at once? Plus, aren't packages packed? You need to unpack that first which minimum doubles the space needed. Besides, 7GB... I've had 4GB HDD back in 1999. I've had 2TB HDD and now 2TB SSD for like 10 years if not more. Bitching about reserved 7GB just makes ppl look like idiots quite frankly.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Who ever said it's a space for single update? Do you think new seasonal builds are 200MB in size? What if more updates are delivered at once?

The entire Windows 10 installation media takes up less space than what this reserves. Again, the installation media for 1809 is 4.5GB.

This is as if a 50GB game took up 130GB of space on your hard drive because "it might need the extra space for updates later".

 

 

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Plus, aren't packages packed? You need to unpack that first which minimum doubles the space needed.

Not necessarily. It depends on how it's formatted but it is possible to just extract the things necessary, one thing at a time, which means the maximum size needed is the package itself plus the largest individual file. Not double.

 

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Besides, 7GB... I've had 4GB HDD back in 1999. I've had 2TB HDD and now 2TB SSD for like 10 years if not more. Bitching about reserved 7GB just makes ppl look like idiots quite frankly.

You are once again missing the point. This is more than just "people should have 7GB left". It's about bloat. It's about inefficiency.

Again, it's like an engineer of a car engine going "yes, this engine uses a lot of fuel, but you should fix that by putting a bigger tank in the car".

Throwing more hardware at the problem does not fix the underlying issues which will only grow bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[RejZoR]

Lol, that literally IS the case with games. Steam games take up double the capacity after unpacking and decryption and only drops down when decryption is verified and install files get deleted.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

46 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Who ever said it's a space for single update? Do you think new seasonal builds are 200MB in size? What if more updates are delivered at once? Plus, aren't packages packed? You need to unpack that first which minimum doubles the space needed. Besides, 7GB... I've had 4GB HDD back in 1999. I've had 2TB HDD and now 2TB SSD for like 10 years if not more. Bitching about reserved 7GB just makes ppl look like idiots quite frankly.

not everyone has money for a 2TB SSD. my MacBook has a 500gb SSD, which is dual-booted so 250GB per OS. 7GB takes up a lot even on that much space if it's almost full already. 

[LAwLz]

24 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Lol, that literally IS the case with games. Steam games take up double the capacity after unpacking and decryption and only drops down when decryption is verified and install files get deleted.

I didn't mean just during the installation. I meant at all times. Imagine if the game files took up 50GB when the game was installed, and then the developers blocked another 80 for "future use", so that the total size that is taken up by the game was 130GB.

[RejZoR]

54 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

not everyone has money for a 2TB SSD. my MacBook has a 500gb SSD, which is dual-booted so 250GB per OS. 7GB takes up a lot even on that much space if it's almost full already. 

2TB HDD's, even fast editions are cheap these days. When I bought Caviar Black 2TB it was over 200€. I never said you'd have to take SSD of that capacity. Or just go the route of hybrid setup. Cheap huge HDD and 128GB SSD for cache. Fast, huge capacity and still cheap.

 

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I didn't mean just during the installation. I meant at all times. Imagine if the game files took up 50GB when the game was installed, and then the developers blocked another 80 for "future use", so that the total size that is taken up by the game was 130GB.

Well, it should. I've seen a lot of bitching from players of Quake Champions because update required double the space of an actual update (because of unpacking) and users didn't have that much space. Of course they didn't blame their poor disk management or too small drive, they blamed developers, not knowing how Steam works for some games...

[Drak3]

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

There is nothing that should need to be updated that would take up so much space. 

Yes, there is. RejZoR already explained that updates are compressed and need to be decompressed. That right there can double or triple the space required to do an update, potentially more. And Microsoft has a tendency to push multiple updates at one time over pushing them out individually. Instead of a single 20-200MB update, it's several.

 

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This is it right here. 

That right there is idiocy, to justify the failings of a consumer.

 

The example of Windows 10's installation media being 4.5GB is a joke. When installed, that 4.5GB turns into 20. Lawlz inadvertently supported RejZoR's point.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Who ever said it's a space for single update?

Then why reserve more? They can always notify the user to free up more space as needed. The rest of yor comment is just a worthless excuse.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

They can always notify the user to free up more space as needed.

And if the user doesn't/can't?

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

i think what most here are arguing for @Drak3 is that they don't want Windows to take up more space because they have the common sense to free up space for updates if Windows asks them to. 

 

most general consumers don't so that's why they do it. i understand that. 

 

i think how this could be solved, as many things with Windows could be solved, is with a switch saying 'i have common sense, let me do what i want'. does that seem like an acceptabel compromise? 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

they have the common sense to free up space for updates if Windows asks them to. 

They don't. They genuinely don't.

 

2 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

think how this could be solved, as many things with Windows could be solved, is with a switch saying 'i have common sense, let me do what i want'. does that seem like an acceptabel compromise?

No, because that's still a waste of time and money to accommodate a small minority.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Well, it should. I've seen a lot of bitching from players of Quake Champions because update required double the space of an actual update (because of unpacking) and users didn't have that much space. Of course they didn't blame their poor disk management or too small drive, they blamed developers, not knowing how Steam works for some games... 

So you think that a 50GB game should take up 130GB of space when installed, because it may need those extra 80GB in the future?

I'm not talking about during the update process either. I am talking about it taking up 130GB of space at all times.

If that is how other developed handled things, there would be pretty widespread storage issues in the world.

 

Anyway, is it a requirement from Valve that updates are packaged, pushed and processed that way? That everything gets downloaded, then extracted? Because there is no technical reason why the update process has to happen that way. I think that plays a major role in determining who is at fault when customers run into issues.

Developers should make their programs to suit the users needs and usage. It is not the customers who should change their behavior to suit what the developers want.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, there is. RejZoR already explained that updates are compressed and need to be decompressed. That right there can double or triple the space required to do an update, potentially more. And Microsoft has a tendency to push multiple updates at one time over pushing them out individually. Instead of a single 20-200MB update, it's several. 

They don't have to be decompressed that way.

It is very much possible to decompress an individual file from a package to RAM, and then write that file alone to the storage drive. Thus, no need for double or triple the storage requirements. It would be WAY faster too.

 

51 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That right there is idiocy, to justify the failings of a consumer.

 

The example of Windows 10's installation media being 4.5GB is a joke. When installed, that 4.5GB turns into 20. Lawlz inadvertently supported RejZoR's point. 

No I didn't support his point. You do NOT need to unpack and write everything to disk all at once. What I said about the package file + the largest individual file being the minimum space requirements still stands.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, because that's still a waste of time and money to accommodate a small minority.

It's just a switch for turning this off or on. They are already investing a quite significant amount of time and resources into developing this feature, which is far more complex than just "set 7GB of space as not free". For example it hooks into Storage Sense, and users will be able to tweak how much space gets reserved to some degree.

They are spending maybe 80 developer hours on developing this, and you say it would be a waste to spend an extra 10 minutes to make an off button? Come on dude...

[79wjd]

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

They don't have to be decompressed that way.

It is very much possible to decompress an individual file from a package to RAM, and then write that file alone to the storage drive. Thus, no need for double or triple the storage requirements. It would be WAY faster too.

 

No I didn't support his point. You do NOT need to unpack and write everything to disk all at once. What I said about the package file + the largest individual file being the minimum space requirements still stands.

So you want to put the update into memory (and no, you can't always just do one piece at a time as you need crash tolerance/dependencies)....... Great idea, except for the fact that this is mainly a problem (still not a new one) for people with under spec's systems -- the person who only has 32gb of storage probably also only has 2gb of ram. An update that filled RAM as it went along would bring the already stressed computer to it's knees. 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

the person who only has 32gb of storage probably also only has 2gb of ram. An update that filled RAM as it went along would bring the already stressed computer to it's knees. 

Hell, most people have between 4 and 8GB or RAM, and most low end systems ship with 500GB HDDs. It might take longer, but for most people, 7GB is nothing on systems with a quarter that storage.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

And if the user doesn't/can't?

Then it wouldnt be able to reserve that space anyway so no point arguing about "what ifs", this is a lazy bodge job solution for a badly broken system....

[79wjd]

48 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Then it wouldnt be able to reserve that space anyway so no point arguing about "what ifs", this is a lazy bodge job solution for a badly broken system....

It would on any new install.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

It would on any new install.

Its still dumb and a sign of incompetence...

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Its still dumb and a sign of incompetence...

So incompetent that even when they balls up a few updates as much as they have in the last few years,  they still gain value and they have ended up the worlds most valuable company.  Juxtaposition that to forum plebs extolling their own supremacy which seems to have petered out to petty insults.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, 79wjd said:

 

So you want to put the update into memory (and no, you can't always just do one piece at a time as you need crash tolerance/dependencies)....... Great idea, except for the fact that this is mainly a problem (still not a new one) for people with under spec's systems -- the person who only has 32gb of storage probably also only has 2gb of ram. An update that filled RAM as it went along would bring the already stressed computer to it's knees. 

No that's not what I said. Reread my post again, and pay attention to the person I replied to and what he said. 

 

I did not under any circumstances say that the update should be downloaded to RAM. I said the extraction process COULD be done on a file by file basis to RAM. Before being applied. I wrote that as a response to someone saying updates need more than double the storage of the download because of extraction and unpacking. 

 

I really hope I am not being too technical here for people to understand, because this is really basic stuff. 

[laminutederire]

On 1/9/2019 at 8:57 AM, RorzNZ said:

Sometimes the hardest solutions require the simplest of thinking, but with a fresh look. Every time I lose my keys its like that. 

Well you should stop asking us on LTT where are your keys because we dont know

In all fairness, I personnally try a lot before posting about it, and some people clearly don't before posting many things on the internet.

or they complain about issues they have because they cheaped out on something, or sometimes you'll see people selectively complain about things. Like I know people complaining non stop about the bad windows 10, but they barely say anything when they get two useless 2080 in a row which artefact.

I think that's the root of why some people think the pc enthusiast community is toxic, or at the very least has things going it's way because of karma or incompetence.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Well you should stop asking us on LTT where are your keys because we dont know

In all fairness, I personnally try a lot before posting about it, and some people clearly don't before posting many things on the internet.

or they complain about issues they have because they cheaped out on something, or sometimes you'll see people selectively complain about things. Like I know people complaining non stop about the bad windows 10, but they barely say anything when they get two useless 2080 in a row which artefact.

I think that's the root of why some people think the pc enthusiast community is toxic, or at the very least has things going it's way because of karma or incompetence.

or people confuse ideals with reality. It's one thing the form a personal opinion on  a company/product because of personal experience, but another to ignore facts and crusade on a personal moral ground that only works in a vacuum/echo chamber.    We none of us have enough information to make half the accusations we do, which is why I always try to give the benefit of the doubt. 

 

It's just a shame that so much bad advice is presented from people claiming to be better informed.