3 ms·
It might have been a concern long ago when space was a premium, but these days in the world of >=1TB drives you could probably build your entire software librar
by tetraca 6y ago
It might have been a concern long ago when space was a premium, but these days in the world of >=1TB drives you could probably build your entire software library in the most horrifying, space inefficient way, and it would still be completely and utterly dwarfed by the user's media library. Excepting games, I would bet most anyone's software library would likely comfortably fit under 128 GB. The photos, games, music, and video would be what necessitates more. And I suspect even then, a lot of people don't bother to store these things locally besides the games and photos.
- Teknoman117 6y agoThe majority of a game's data usage comes from assets. The binary is a tiny fraction of the size of the application.
- tetraca 6y agoThe game binary is generally completely worthless without its associated assets, though. Nobody would really want to install Skyrim without the master esm since the assets contained therein are essential to the experience. Maybe that's not particularly useful to the discussion, but my point is you could probably fit all your most commonly used programs in a static format + all your average assets like icons or config files, and run and use them in a pretty small amount of space. The games, FLAC music collection, high quality photo library, etc can very easily be much greater a storage requirement than an application library full of static binaries.