Vista's Footprint

Mikey 3 comments
Vista's Footprint

There has recently been some negative talk about the footprint Vista leaves on a hard drive, but I think it needs to be put into perspective before someone says the 'B' word.

I have Vista Ultimate on an 18gb primary partition, but I install all my programs to a different partition altogether. This means my C: drive contains the operating system and pretty much nothing else.

I have around 7gb remaining on my Vista partition, which means the operating system is only using around 11gb. That includes system restore points and my swap file, which make up a few gigabytes on their own.

So you might be thinking 'wow that's still a lot of disc space', but I don't think it is. Have a look at some of the other applications you have installed and think about their function.

Take Adobe Acrobat 8 for example (Acrobloat as it is affectionately known), which has a footprint of approximately 420mb without the LiveDesigner 8 studio portion installed. Nearly half a gigabyte and its only functions are to read, edit and create a PDF. And we rightfully complain about Acrobloat because of this.

Compared to Microsoft Office 2007 with Access, Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, Project, Publisher and Word installed, (which allow you to do a myriad of tasks, both business and creative) and is only marginally larger at around 490mb, you can start to appreciate the difference.

Also looking at any next generation Game, which is anything from 2 - 5gb and serves only a single purpose, that is a whopping amount of disc space considering.

That aside, you have to wonder about anyone complaining about loosing 11 or so gigabytes to an operating system. More features, multiple layers of security, and heaps of built-in software and you should expect the extra disc cost along with bigger RAM requirements and in some cases, hardware upgrades.

Hard drives are so cheap now. In our house we have 1.25 terabytes between 3 PC's which was quite inexpensive. And I don't consider that a lot of space, especially as I work with large multimedia files for a living. Some of my uncompressed DV captures are around 20 gigabytes. Yes I said gigabytes.

All that said, the lesser versions of Vista will have a smaller installation requirement, so don't fret. Even I would be comfortable installing any of them (including Vista Ultimate) on my Mum's 40gb laptop.

Not a Member!

Can't see my name in the yelloow

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 01:22 AM

Hmm, anything compared to uncompressed video and Acrobat Reader will look look tiny and efficient. Those are the two most egregious examples of hard drive space hogs I can think of! If you're gonna relate on those terms, then mention FoxIt Reader (3.9 mb !). One percent the size of Acrobat reader 8?? And I'm sure DIVX can compress your 20 gig of vid to around 700 mb. Is Vista as compact as it could be?

Not a Member!


Thursday 2nd August 2007 | 09:08 PM

Back in 1988 an entire gui OS was fitting into a 192K ROM memory chip... That was the ATARI 520, 1040, MegaST, etc...

In 1988 Microsoft had a version of WORD for WINDOWS 3.1 and it was 12Meg large... Theay also had the equivalent for ATARI and it fitted on a 720K floppy...

I devised the expression "Software Fossile"around 1994 to describe all those patches left over by programmers on a piece of software due to the fact that it would cost too much to take them away.

Calcualtion is simple... Have a software 10% the size of the current version and I'll show you it's 10 times faster than the original... to load and to run... Noy mentionning the desapearance of several bugs as a bonus.

Not a Member!


Friday 21st November 2008 | 10:53 PM

See how Vistas footprint compares to other operating systems. Make no mistake. Microsoft did.

Add a comment

Login to Rusty Lime

Not registered? | Forgot your Password? Cancel Login