Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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. 

I assume you're speaking about me here.

The thing is though, I do not form my opinions about Microsoft and Windows from just personal experience like "I had an issue on my PC therefore Windows is bad". I do have enough information to make the accusations I make. Not to blow my own horn but I've had direct contact with several developers working at Microsoft. I work for a Microsoft gold partner. I have a few MSCE colleagues and contact with a couple of MVPs.

 

So it's kind of annoying to know you're right about something and then the other person goes "no, I assume it's some other way therefore you're wrong". Or it's really annoying when talking about optimization methods for processing compressed updates for someone to just go "duhh, so you say download the updates to RAM?" and then a bunch of other people goes "haha wow you sure owned LAwLz!". Maybe I am talking above a lot of users heads, or maybe I suck at explaining things, but a lot of times it feels like some specific users have the attitude that I am wrong no matter what I say, and therefore misinterpret my posts on purpose.

 

It really shouldn't be hard to follow for example this conversation:

Someone: Updates are packaged and needs to be extracted, so therefore they require more than twice the space on the drive.

Me: No the maximum it would need is the package size plus the biggest individual file, because you can extract to RAM and then write to disk on a file by file basis, rather than unpack everything.

Someone: So you're saying download everything to RAM!?!?! Bet you didn't think of crash tolerance!

 

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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

I assume that's a not-so-subtle jab at me again. Can you give some examples? If your examples are not from this thread then maybe we can take it in the PMs?

You're one of the people I feel deliberately misinterpret what I say just so that you can go "no that's wrong".

Here is a tips, if you assume I mean something but it's not explicitly written in my post, or if you assume I am implying things, don't make counter arguments against that. I am very, very careful and deliberate when I choose my words, and I only mean the exact things I have written in my posts.

 

For example if I say a heuristic anti-virus can detect previously undiscovered threats then I mean exactly that, and there is no reading between the lines necessary, nor is anything else being commented on.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I assume you're speaking about me here.

 

I assume that's a not-so-subtle jab at me again.

No.

 

Many times I hear people recommend AMD solely because they hate Nvidia, many times I hear people misrepresent TDP advancing an ignorant narrative against Intel.  Sometimes your understanding of ethics and consequential conclusions are different to mine, but I honestly don't think I have ever seen you recommend a bad product because of an ideal you hold (I could be wrong, but I haven't seen it personally).

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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. 

I understood exactly what you said, but you still can't always do it one file at a time, which would still cause problems for barely operable systems.

[Ashleyyyy]

as i see it after reading this whole discussion, Microsoft just did an oopsie by saying 32gb is enough for a Windows 10 system. it isn't. at least if you actually want to use it and install chome and a few other things. 

 

that's the bottom line here isn't it? 

 

@79wjd @mr moose @LAwLz 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

as i see it after reading this whole discussion, Microsoft just did an oopsie by saying 32gb is enough for a Windows 10 system. it isn't. at least if you actually want to use it and install chome and a few other things. 

 

that's the bottom line here isn't it? 

 

@79wjd @mr moose @LAwLz 

I don't thinks so, I think MS realised that many computers weren't updating due to lack of space. If space is set aside by the OS before it can be used by the user then that is no longer an issue.   

[Uttamattamakin]

13 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

as i see it after reading this whole discussion, Microsoft just did an oopsie by saying 32gb is enough for a Windows 10 system. it isn't. at least if you actually want to use it and install chome and a few other things. 

 

that's the bottom line here isn't it? 

 

@79wjd @mr moose @LAwLz 

Yes. Beacuse a real running windows install as on my surface pro... Taking the 20GB windows folder, and other 7GB of reserve space leaves only 5 GB for applications.  Is that even enough for Google Chrome and  MS office?   I don't think so.  

This may just be another update that will cripple a lot of users. 

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This may just be another update that will cripple a lot of users.

A minute minority.

 

Just like every oversensationalized time.

[Blademaster91]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

A minute minority.

 

Just like every oversensationalized time.

Well its really ridiculous when Microsoft essentially tells you your Microsoft Surface is obsolete because MS insists on piling crappy updates on top of more crappy updates instead of optimizing the OS.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well its really ridiculous when Microsoft essentially tells you your Microsoft Surface is obsolete because MS insists on piling crappy updates on top of more crappy updates instead of optimizing the OS.

Again, optimizing for space is a waste of time and dime. There are better things for Microsoft devs to work on, like the actual contents of updates.

[Drak3]

I back checked. The only Surface devices with less than 64GB of storage are the Surface and Surface 2. Windows RT machines.

 

The Surface 3? 64GB base.

The Surface Go? 64GB base.

The Pro? 64GB.

Pro 2? 64GB.

Pro 3? 64GB.

Pro 4? 128GB.

 

And on the 64GB models, 37GB is left after Windows. The 32GB RT Surface 1 and 2 have 18GB left, and are not subject to this update.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

... 5 GB for applications.  Is that even enough for Google Chrome and  MS office?   I don't think so.  

You can think that, but you'd be wrong.

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This may just be another update that will cripple a lot of users. 

"Cripple" "a lot" of users that bought something that was already obsolete.

 

52 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I back checked. The only Surface devices with less than 64GB of storage are the Surface and Surface 2. Windows RT machines.

 

The Surface 3? 64GB base.

The Surface Go? 64GB base.

The Pro? 64GB.

Pro 2? 64GB.

Pro 3? 64GB.

Pro 4? 128GB.

 

And on the 64GB models, 37GB is left after Windows. The 32GB RT Surface 1 and 2 have 18GB left, and are not subject to this update.

There was also a special education edition 32gb Surface 3.

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

There was also a special education edition 32gb Surface 3.

Okay. Even then, so far there is no device that matches OP's claim.

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I back checked. The only Surface devices with less than 64GB of storage are the Surface and Surface 2. Windows RT machines.

 

The Surface 3? 64GB base.

The Surface Go? 64GB base.

The Pro? 64GB.

Pro 2? 64GB.

Pro 3? 64GB.

Pro 4? 128GB.

 

And on the 64GB models, 37GB is left after Windows. The 32GB RT Surface 1 and 2 have 18GB left, and are not subject to this update.

The  reserved updates could be a problem for the base 64GB Surface machines also. After the 7GB reserved for Windows updates,the Windows old folder that backs up a previous install after an update can take 15-20GB or more, install Chrome and MS office and there really isn't enough space left.

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Again, optimizing for space is a waste of time and dime. There are better things for Microsoft devs to work on, like the actual contents of updates.

It isn't a waste of time or money when the updates being forced are buggy and a waste of time for a lot of people, Microsoft should be focusing on the quality of updates. I don't have a problem with the 7GB of reserved space personally, but something is obviously wrong when MS would rather have updates take up 7GB of drive space than fix the update system.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 but something is obviously wrong when MS would rather have updates take up 7GB of drive space than fix the update system.

Maybe they need the 7GB to fix the update system?

[vorticalbox]

On 1/9/2019 at 5:28 AM, Bouzoo said:

How about not interrupting us by letting us decide when and what to install? Yeah of course, this seems way more logical. 

Then what happens is no one installs updates and then whe exploit is found its in use for years which in turn causes everyone to be mad at Microsoft for not fixing it.

 

Personally I feel like security updates should be forced on users but feature upgrades etc. I should choose when to install them.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

Then what happens is no one installs updates and then whe exploit is found its in use for years which in turn causes everyone to be mad at Microsoft for not fixing it.

 

Personally I feel like security updates should be forced on users but feature upgrades etc. I should choose when to install them.

It could get messy with so many different versions of the same windows if an exploit is discovered in something that has been updates several times. If they just work to the latest upgrade then all those who chose not upgrade will miss security updates which is the issue they had before.

[jagdtigger]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It could get messy with so many different versions of the same windows if an exploit is discovered in something that has been updates several times. If they just work to the latest upgrade then all those who chose not upgrade will miss security updates which is the issue they had before.

First fix the base issue, they most get that spaghetti code fixed and straightened out and make the OS modular before anything else.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

First fix the base issue, they most get that spaghetti code fixed and straightened out and make the OS modular before anything else.

 

How on earth did MS ever manage to make it this far without you?

[ZacoAttaco]

I understand if people are upset that Surface products with 32GB or even 64GB of storage are now harder to use because of this update, that's fair, particularly given Microsoft was selling them but I don't really get why everyone else is upset. It's not ideal but I'm not fuming because of this news...

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

How on earth did MS ever manage to make it this far without you?

You cant build a palace on a rotten base.... This is why i say the MS of toda ;s incompetent AF.

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

You cant build a palace on a rotten base.... This is why i say the MS of toda ;s incompetent AF.

that's basically what you said before.  You know how it is with these super successful multinational companies with more resources at their disposal than a hundred of you.  But hey, I am sure you've seen something they overlooked.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

How on earth did MS ever manage to make it this far without you?

More importantly, why is the operating system they champion such a commercial failure?

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

I understand if people are upset that Surface products with 32GB or even 64GB of storage are now harder to use because of this update, that's fair, particularly given Microsoft was selling them but I don't really get why everyone else is upset. It's not ideal but I'm not fuming because of this news...

I am upset because it reminds me of how badly made Windows is, and it has the potential to be so much better.

 

I think people have gotten way too used to bloat. 7GB is a massive amount of space, especially for updates. It might not sound like a lot because you're used to seeing things like videos and pictures, which are VERY large in space, but for just code it is an unfathomable amount.

 

 

I downloaded war and peace to illustrate this.

The version I got is about 1300 pages. In its uncompressed format it is 3.2MB.

So each page is about 2.5 kilobytes, or 0.00244MB. 7GB is 7168MB

That means that in 7GB of data, you can fit 2.937.700 (almost 3 million) A4 pages of uncompressed text.

 

If we wrote that on A4 pagers and laid them out in a line, it would be almost 900 kilometers long.

 

And that's BEFORE compression. Updates to operating systems are often very easy to compress.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

More importantly, why is the operating system they champion such a commercial failure?

Just because something becomes popular does not mean it is good. That is "Argumentum ad populum"

Also, if you want to know why Windows got into the position it is now then I recommend reading some court documents, because Microsoft did many, many, illegal things to kill competitors and get the market dominance they have today. And they were found guilty by not just the EU court, but also in other countries like the US too.

At one point the US court ruled that Microsoft was using so many illegal business practices that they should have been split into two companies. That ruling was later successfully appealed by Microsoft though.

 

So if you were serious in your question, then the answer is "because Microsoft broke the law to kill any competitor that threatened them".

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

that's basically what you said before.  You know how it is with these super successful multinational companies with more resources at their disposal than a hundred of you.  But hey, I am sure you've seen something they overlooked.

They overlook many things, this """OS""" come out several years ago but its still a bugfest. Stop defending them because its boring as hell...

[TechyBen]

It's because these are not "updates". They are entire ISOs. The OS does an ISO/reinstall every year/6 months.

 

I love Linux has Kbs worth of updates. XD