2 ms·

But that sort of plays into my point. With a 64 bit version of XP, and 8GB of RAM, you could fit the entirety of the operating system in memory, paging file an

But that sort of plays into my point. With a 64 bit version of XP, and 8GB of RAM, you could fit the entirety of the operating system in memory, paging file and all. A clean install of XP, with nothing else included, occupies about 3GB of disk space. You'd still have 4GB of RAM free to run the system. But as of Vista, the mandatory minimum RAM was escalated (from 64MB) to 1GB, and all to support a hideous UI, and not much else. The operating system sprawls across 64GB of disk space. With every new version, it feels just as shitty as before. Despite umpteen quadruplings of hardware resources, shit still feels like it's Windows 95, fucking again. Nothing gets faster. Drop $3,000 a year, just to swim against the tide, with incremental changes in the appearance of progress bars, so that ugly animations can actually flash periodically as they steal your youth from you, rather than inflicting anxiety whilst freezing intermittently. Every subsequent version of Windows fails to improve, continues to suck, and in some areas it actually gets worse than it already is. But christ almighty. After 20 god damned years. Why?

sliverstorm 13y ago
Your parent's point is that at least some of the bloat is not actually Windows. There was a time when Firefox occupied tens of megabytes in RAM. Today it occupies at least 500MB at all times, for me. So good luck with your 512MB Windows XP machine of yore- and that one isn't the fault of Windows.
- becauseBloat 13y ago
  An application installed at the option of the end user is not subject to the same rigorous requirements that an, oftentimes, compulsory operating system is subject to. Especially when the operating system costs money, and lots of it.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I still don't see how Firefox bloating proves your point about Windows.
    - becauseBloat 13y ago
      Maybe it has something to do with the background service Firefox has to bundle with their Windows installer now. You know, because Windows registries and Windows user policies are borderline retarded. But I agree, I'm really not sure why you decided bring Firefox into this discussion either.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        dubfan was the one who brought up browsers.
    - kuschku 13y ago
      Firefox with 30 tabs and several Youtube videos uses about 334MB So, while surfing just 5-8 websites at a time you'd have enough memory. Sometimes I'm even using a computer from 1996 which struggles even with xp – it's good enough as a compile server (Pentium II).
icedchai 13y ago
Yep. It must be a conspiracy between MS and Intel to encourage both software and hardware upgrades. Windows sucks, but it's not much better with desktop Linux. It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago. You can always install fvwm and boot into it. If you are so inclined, even CDE is open source these days.
koide 13y ago
That's totally not my experience. Yes, it requires more space/RAM, but in fairly regular for today 4GB RAM machines, Win 7/Win 8 fly compared to Win XP with 3GB RAM. So, my anecdata sees yours. Any real data/benchmarks to share?
userbinator 13y ago
And don't forget they're actually stripping out tons of features from the newer versions too, and in the process also making it require more resources at the same time.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Your parent's point is that at least some of the bloat is not actually Windows. There was a time when Firefox occupied tens of megabytes in RAM. Today it occupies at least 500MB at all times, for me. So good luck with your 512MB Windows XP machine of yore- and that one isn't the fault of Windows.

becauseBloat 13y ago
An application installed at the option of the end user is not subject to the same rigorous requirements that an, oftentimes, compulsory operating system is subject to. Especially when the operating system costs money, and lots of it.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I still don't see how Firefox bloating proves your point about Windows.
  - becauseBloat 13y ago
    Maybe it has something to do with the background service Firefox has to bundle with their Windows installer now. You know, because Windows registries and Windows user policies are borderline retarded. But I agree, I'm really not sure why you decided bring Firefox into this discussion either.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      dubfan was the one who brought up browsers.
  - kuschku 13y ago
    Firefox with 30 tabs and several Youtube videos uses about 334MB So, while surfing just 5-8 websites at a time you'd have enough memory. Sometimes I'm even using a computer from 1996 which struggles even with xp – it's good enough as a compile server (Pentium II).

icedchai 13y ago

Yep. It must be a conspiracy between MS and Intel to encourage both software and hardware upgrades. Windows sucks, but it's not much better with desktop Linux. It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago.

rbanffy 13y ago
> It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago. You can always install fvwm and boot into it. If you are so inclined, even CDE is open source these days.

koide 13y ago

That's totally not my experience. Yes, it requires more space/RAM, but in fairly regular for today 4GB RAM machines, Win 7/Win 8 fly compared to Win XP with 3GB RAM. So, my anecdata sees yours. Any real data/benchmarks to share?

userbinator 13y ago

And don't forget they're actually stripping out tons of features from the newer versions too, and in the process also making it require more resources at the same time.