Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[Canada EH]

Anything great sticks around for a long time.

 

13 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Its actually stunning to see how long DirectX 9 has hung around for.

 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

1. Not calling anyone out by name but certain responses ...  Not all users are like LTT users.  Many many people buy the minimum computer that will meet their needs.  For a long time 32GB for EMMC on a netbook type device was enough.  It still is enough. 
2. There is no real technical reason for this 7GB of the boot drive, which is most often the only drive.  MS is doing this arbitrarily because they are lazy.     The problem of botched updates could be solved simply by better communication and more user choice.

It was asked do people who use a computer for school need more than 32 GB?  After this 7 GB yes.  Windows itself takes 23.4 GB on my Surface pro LTE.  With seven more that is 30.4 GB....just for windows...  

 

30.4GB just for windows. 

Leaving only 2GB for MS Office (or any other office).

That is the problem. 

WTF Microsoft indeed.

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.

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Far from it.

Oh yes you are. Less garbage in code=less wasted resource=less system requirement. Which is a good thing for everyone that you dont need a power plant for simple tasks. As for MS's solution here, no. Reserving space out of laziness/carelessness is not superior nor acceptable.

 

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

because Linux is not good enough to switch over.

Oh, and what is it missing that an  average user needs?

Web browser - Check

E-Mail Client - Check

Chat Client -Check

Media Player - Check

Office - Check

PDF Viewer - Check

Easy to use Software Center - Check

 

Did i miss something?

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh, and what is it missing that an  average user needs?

Stability.

Linux is not near as stable on the vast majority of hardware. Nor is it as easy to use.

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh yes you are

No, I'm not. It is a waste of time and money to "optimize" a product when it won't benefit many users, especially those that aren't likely to help recoup the costs.

 

Most people are not willing to pay for the increased dev time so that an entitled few can keep using their low end, obsolete garbage.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

1. Not calling anyone out by name but certain responses ...  Not all users are like LTT users.  Many many people buy the minimum computer that will meet their needs.  For a long time 32GB for EMMC on a netbook type device was enough.  It still is enough. 
2. There is no real technical reason for this 7GB of the boot drive, which is most often the only drive.  MS is doing this arbitrarily because they are lazy.     The problem of botched updates could be solved simply by better communication and more user choice.

It was asked do people who use a computer for school need more than 32 GB?  After this 7 GB yes.  Windows itself takes 23.4 GB on my Surface pro LTE.  With seven more that is 30.4 GB....just for windows...  

 

30.4GB just for windows. 

Leaving only 2GB for MS Office (or any other office).

That is the problem. 

WTF Microsoft indeed.

If the loss of 7gb is a problem for these people, then they already had a problem.

 

Not to mention the fact that I can buy an i386 based system, that doesn't mean that I should be supported. Microsoft supporting legacy garbage is 90% of why windows is in the problem that it's in.

[jagdtigger]

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Stability.

Linux is not near as stable on the vast majority of hardware. Nor is it as easy to use.

Yeah, its unstable and im definitely having luck with my devices running 24/7 for months without issues(laptops, pc's, rpi's, etc).....  /s

 

As for easy to use Kubuntu and Linux Mint is far more easier than the all over the place mess windows 10 is.....

[Drak3]

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

As for easy to use Kubuntu and Linux Mint is far more easier than the all over the place mess windows 10 is.....

Having used both on and off for 6 years, that is bullshit. Linux is harder to use. Linux is harder to set up. Linux is harder to fix and requires fixing out of the box.

 

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

im definitely having luck with my devices running 24/7 for months without issues(laptops, pc's, rpi's, etc).....  /s

Either you're lying or you're omitting details on how you achieved that.

[mynameisjuan]

56 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Stability.

Linux is not near as stable on the vast majority of hardware. Nor is it as easy to use.

With how many linux machines I have and Win10 boxes, windows is far more stable even though I prefer linux. 

 

People associate stability with uptime. 

25 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, its unstable and im definitely having luck with my devices running 24/7 for months without issues(laptops, pc's, rpi's, etc).....  /s

I can see your GUI crashing through your comment. Sure you can have sick uptime bro but that not the point of stability. Linux still has quite of bit of hardware issues with stability or not even working at all.

[jagdtigger]

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Either you're lying or you're omitting details on how you achieved that.

The right tool for the right work, i use mainly kubuntu. For machines running any kind of server i use debian(grand total of 2 running it, the rest is kubuntu). I didnt need to "fix" anything, and install is pretty easy(it actually offers up several options for you how youd like to install the system). Using it is pretty easy too with its well structured consistent GUI. My first Distro was Ubuntu 8 back in 2008 so i have plenty of experience with linux, including how easy it is became to use it.

 

/EDIT

After reading your posts in the other thread it is obvious you know nothing about current linux distros. Without a base it is pointless to continue....

 

27 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I can see your GUI crashing through your comment. Sure you can have sick uptime bro but that not the point of stability. Linux still has quite of bit of hardware issues with stability or not even working at all.

Then you should stop smokin that stuff because my GUI isnt crashing, sorry to burst your bubbles. As for HW you cant blame the OS for the fault of the manufacturer not having drivers(some even goes as far as blocking anyone from making it with NDA's)... In the early days(way back when i started using linux) there were some issues but currently all of my systems are running just fine with several year old installs and dont have sudden crashes, lockups.

Edited January 14, 2019 by jagdtigger

[mynameisjuan]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

As for HW you cant blame the OS

How many windows threads are you and others blaming windows when hardware is causing it to fail or updates dont support certain hardware? Then turn around saying you can say that about linux.

 

[jagdtigger]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

How many windows threads are you and others blaming windows when hardware is causing it to fail or updates dont support certain hardware? Then turn around saying you can say that about linux.

 

If everyone jumps into the well you jump after them?   This is a tech forum, just because there are dumb/lazy ppl who like to blame the OS for everything that doesnt mean you can even though you know that it isnt the OS's fault.

[Drak3]

32 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

it is obvious you know nothing about current linux distros

Pound salt. I can say the same about you.

[ZacoAttaco]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The difference is that Microsoft has changed to a rolling release schedule which they are clearly unfit to keep up with.

Sure, people had issues when they upgrading from Vista to 7, and from 7 to 7 with SP1. But that happened two times in like 8 years. Now Microsoft are forced to release two major updates every year. 

Windows 10 have already had 6 large updates (and in 2 months the 7th will be released) which makes major changes to the system files and functions.

 

Windows 10 have had 6 times as many large updates in 3 years, as Windows 7 had in 9 years.

 

 

The normal updates seems to be about the same for both, which is to say they rarely cause any issues (although  it happens sometimes, but that happened with both 7 and 10). It's the major updates that are the pain in the ass, and since Windows 10 gets A LOT more of those updates than Windows 7 did, more issues arise.

 

 

GoodBytes, you know this. So why are you leaving that very important detail out? What you said is true, but it's very misleading since you're not telling the full story.

I don't like this new iterative Windows 10, because like you said, there has been 6 major updates, and I really can't name a single additional feature that's noteworthy, perhaps night light? I use that a bit. On the other hand, MacOS releases new versions every 1-2 years and usually they come with substantial updates. Anyway, I hate just ranting for the sake of it.

[Drak3]

Just now, ZacoAttaco said:

MacOS releases new versions every 1-2 years and usually they come with substantial updates.

Every year, and for a long time, those updates were playing catch up to Windows.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

That's not going to happen. The only imrpovements to be seen will be old, low end junk.

Again, explain to me how a program using 100MB less RAM will only happen on "old, low end junk" and not on high end computers.

100MB is 100MB, no matter what computer it's on. Same with how many processor calls something needs.

Performance is far more granular than just "it runs" or "it doesn't run". If you cut down processor time by 10% then that applies to all hardware, not just low end hardware.

 

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Only on paper.

Ehm, what? What do you mean? Having easier to read and understand code makes it easier to work on.

I can clearly tell that you do not work or is involved with programming. Programming etiquette/style is a very important subject.

The coding style guide for Linux kernel contributions is 16 pages long, because writing well structured code is important. A lot of Windows does not follow any structure. Hell, a lot of Windows isn't even documented.

It's a pain in the ass to work with.

 

 

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, there is. This ensures that future updates won't encounter issues with storage.

He put emphasis on "boot drive".

 

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It isn't worth the time or money to optimize the code. To 99% of users, there is no benefit, so why the fuck should end users foot that bill and get nothing in return? 

"There is no benefit optimizing our engines to use less fuel"

-Volkswagen group, using the same logic as you do

 

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Most people are not willing to pay for the increased dev time so that an entitled few can keep using their low end, obsolete garbage.

I wonder how many people were willing to pay for the dev time of "3D viewer", or Groove Music, or Messaging, or Mixed Reality Portal, 3D Paint, or Photos, or Snip and Sketch... The list goes on.

If we're only going to spend money on things the average user would say "yes I am willing to pay additional money to get this" then Windows would still be stuck in Windows 95. But I think "it's too costy to develop" is a pretty shitty excuse for a company not improving their products.

 

And again, increased efficient and better code benefits EVERYONE regardless of hardware. More efficient code would make my 8 core computer with 32GB of RAM faster too.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

If the loss of 7gb is a problem for these people, then they already had a problem. 

It's not that losing 7GB of space is a problem for most people. The problem is that Windows is bloated as hell and is in desperate need of a major reworking, and that becomes more and more apparent for every year that passes.

 

 

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

Not to mention the fact that I can buy an i386 based system, that doesn't mean that I should be supported. Microsoft supporting legacy garbage is 90% of why windows is in the problem that it's in. 

Supporting "legacy garbage" is very inexpensive and doesn't really cause any issues. Since it is "legacy garbage" it was mostly designed in an era where resources were expensive as hell, and as a result the code for the legacy functions is very small and lightweight.

Like I said earlier, libraries with thousands of APIs are less than 1 Megabyte each.

I wouldn't be surprised if the code used by 90% of Win32 applications fits in like 200MB of space.

 

What is a problem, is that Windows is a clusterfuck of code that is all dependent on each other, and it's poorly documented. Microsoft required quite a lot of time and major resources to make it possible to remove IE from Windows after EU demanded it. Why? Because a ton of functionality in Windows was dependent on IE. That also meant that changing something in IE could have unexpected affects on other parts of the OS, which in turn makes debugging and troubleshooting very difficult too.

 

You would think that Microsoft wouldn't do the same mistake again, but it seems like they have. For example Cortana is heavily baked into other parts of the OS. Same goes with Edge. Forcefully removing those two can cause other things to stop functioning.

 

What Microsoft need is to restructure Windows to be far more modular, with less internal dependencies, and cleaner, more well written code.

 

Getting pretty tired of people who has no idea about how Windows functions going on about "if they only dropped legacy support...". They can't even drop legacy support if they tried, like the control panel, because nobody at Microsoft actually understands the code and what it does. They just know that it works when written that way.

 

Legacy code is NOT the issue with Windows. It's Windows itself and the coding philosophy behind it. Microsoft picked a path ~20 years ago and they have stuck to it, despite it showing problems along the way. Now they are stuck with it because rewriting it is a massive task.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

When the space your product needs for updates alone is more than what other require for their entire product stack, while not really providing that much difference in terms of functionality then something is fundamentally wrong.

 

If the Volkswagen Golf got 40 miles per gallon, and the Kia Ceed, Mazda 3, Ford Focus and other similar cars got 60 miles to the gallon then I'd start questioning what the hell Volkswagen was doing, and think that they needed to focus on improving their fuel efficiency.

"Just drive to a petrol station more often" is not a valid argument, nor is "but it has a bigger tank" or "just buy better hardware".

 

 

I am not sure if you saw the thread about Blizzard's launcher but I thought that was bloated and insane that a game launcher required 200MB too. It's something that should take up maybe 1MB, not 200MB.

 

Yes, things are getting bigger. But a lot of times it's not because the programs actually need to be bigger, it's because developers are lazy and writing shitty code. Did you know that I have more than 5 instances of Chrome installed on my computer? Did you know that it runs several times slower than native code, and uses more power?

If the programs I used weren't so sloppily written I would have much higher performance, longer battery life and more space on my disk. It's such a colossal waste, and while the Blizzard launcher in and of itself isn't an issue, all these programs being bloated adds up. It's death by a thousand cuts.

 

I think it's really sad that Intel have to work extremely hard to bring minor improvements to their processors. They slave away and eek out maybe a 5% IPC increase from one generation to the next, and then a developer comes by and uses a library that is 5% slower than another one, completely negating the performance increase we would have gotten.

 

 

Then I really don't understand what you meant by your previous post. Can you explain why you said that "We will never need a 32bit OS for home use"?

 

 

Microsoft has been working on a project to slim Windows down. It's called Windows 10 Lean. I just think that the entire platform is in dire need of a diet and quite frankly rewrite on top of a change in design philosophy.

 

 

Not sure what you mean. Are you implying that the only reason why other operating systems are smaller is because they do not have compatibility with older applications? Because that's false. If it weren't for package manager differences, very old GNU/Linux programs would be able to run on modern distros today. 

 

Things like system libraries takes up very little space. 

user32_dll for example implements a large part of the user interface components in Windows (for example window management). It also includes components for message passing and input processing. The entire library takes up less than 800KB and contains over 1000 functions.

kernel.dll is another one of the very large libraries. It has something like 1400 functions in it and takes up 837KB.

None of that changes what I said.   You'll always find bloated software, you'll always find different products that are different.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

The only silly thing here is your stance. Just because everything is getting bigger and faster it doesnt mean they can take the lazy route... And you shouldnt make any excuses for them either. They became lazy AF and now their decision comes back to haunt them.

Not making any excuses for anything, I'm just not offended because ms  makes their products their way.  I can't change the history of windows development and I can't see this actually effecting anyone.

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can't see this actually effecting anyone.

According to Lawlz, optimization is super crucial to everything, and Windows is a gluttonous pig that wastes resources.

 

 

Which falls apart when you see that even on modern low end machines, the level of difference that these types of optimizations makes is near zero. Meaning that these optimizations are a waste of time and money. Time and money that are better spent in other things.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

According to Lawlz, optimization is super crucial to everything, and Windows is a gluttonous pig that wastes resources.

 

 

Which falls apart when you see that even on modern low end machines, the level of difference that these types of optimizations makes is near zero. Meaning that these optimizations are a waste of time and money. Time and money that are better spent in other things.

 

well, there is that angle too which is likely true, but I was more thinking that for those who did buy a cheap 32GB eMM machine and don't have 7GB free, I am assuming that windows will still just operate and at worst not install any updates.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

there is that angle too which is likely true

The only time you see gains from the type of optimizations Lawlz is talking about, is when you ask way too much of your system.

[Blademaster91]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

well, there is that angle too which is likely true, but I was more thinking that for those who did buy a cheap 32GB eMM machine and don't have 7GB free, I am assuming that windows will still just operate and at worst not install any updates.

A cheap machine with 32GB of eMMC used to be enough, 7GB in reserved updates wouldn't be so bad if it allowed a person to choose what those updates were, and its already bad enough that Windows takes up about 10GB in a Windows.old file backup. The average person just tosses everything on the C drive, so this could be a problem for quite a few people.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

A cheap machine with 32GB of eMMC used to be enough, 7GB in reserved updates wouldn't be so bad if it allowed a person to choose what those updates were, and its already bad enough that Windows takes up about 10GB in a Windows.old file backup. The average person just tosses everything on the C drive, so this could be a problem for quite a few people.

The person who has a 32gb system and just throws everything on C will already have a problem.

[Arika]

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

The proper way to do it is to check the available space before starting the update process. Any other solution is just a bodge job.

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?

 

 

 

[Drak3]

18 minutes ago, Arika S said:

but how is this a solution?

It isn't.

 

19 minutes ago, Arika S said:

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

Basically.

 

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

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

A cheap machine with 32GB of eMMC used to be enough, 7GB in reserved updates wouldn't be so bad if it allowed a person to choose what those updates were, and its already bad enough that Windows takes up about 10GB in a Windows.old file backup. The average person just tosses everything on the C drive, so this could be a problem for quite a few people.

As I said, Assuming that when windows looks for 7GB and  can't find it, it just runs as per normal.  Besides the fact people who don't have 7GB to spare are already at the limit of their machine and need to find alternative solutions for everything already.