Next version of windows will need around 100 GB disk space for itself!

Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to year
2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed "vienna"

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg

Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)

"Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
> "vienna"
>
> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>
> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)

Ah, but see here!

http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=7284&catid=1

The capacity of hard drives will be about 5 TB in two years.
100 GB will be trivial!

Tom Lake

so I guess the next version of windows will be available on blue ray or hdd
disks that can hold 20-25 gb of infortmation
so that when its unpacked and installed it would inflate to 100gb.
Or could could get a 5 dvd install set.

Please insert next disk to continue.... :-)


Now lets think a little about ram

win95=8mb, win98=16, winMe=32, winXP= 128, winVista= 512, Win Vienna? It
seems that it will need
2GB of ram just for itself!!! The rise is non linear, rather
logarythmic.....

Of course there will be only a 64 bit version it seems... since a 32 bit OS
cannot handle more than 4 gb.
With the OS taking up half of that.. you will have only 2 free (in reality
it its less, more like 1 gb left)
(yeah I know servers @ 32 bit can handle many chunks of 4 gb)


"Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
> "vienna"
>
> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>
> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>
>

"Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
> "vienna"
>
> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>
> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and
Z/OS
systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.

As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are
meaningless.

yes.... of course.. this has been the case.. in fact the disk space capacity
has grown faster than the
needs of the OS

But still..... 100 gb for windows? lol


"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eKXTRBQlHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
>> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
>> "vienna"
>>
>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>>
>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>
> Ah, but see here!
>
> http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=7284&catid=1
>
> The capacity of hard drives will be about 5 TB in two years.
> 100 GB will be trivial!
>
> Tom Lake
>

Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
windows...
The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
available,
why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?

Anyway this graph is not a precise one.. its a fuzzy estimate, just to see
trends...

No one knows what will happen in the future... or even if there will be
another version of windows
for that matter!


"Julian" <Julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5C0ABCF4-CFDC-4A92-A9A8-B86AB3DA028B@microsoft.com...
> "Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
>> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
>> "vienna"
>>
>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>>
>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>
> Lies, damned lies, and statistics
>
> Please post the equivalent data for the average Unix, Linux, OS10, VM and
> Z/OS
> systems so the figures can be seen in their correct context.
>
> As it stand, without comparison to alternatives, your graphs are
> meaningless.

"Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
news:e9GPLLQlHHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
> windows...
> The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows is
> available,
> why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?

Oh I get it....

You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.

The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and
1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills

XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very
different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run, although
some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew..

Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much revised
code..

Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb..


"Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
> "vienna"
>
> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>
> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

you need around 10 gb for vista... you need around 2gb for xp

im talking about the OS...

thats 5 times more space

Also you are talking about win2k with service packs or the first vanilla
version?

The first one needed less that what you say I believe.


"Mike Hall MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OIxvTRQlHHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The WINNT folder in a Win 2000 installation takes up between 1.5 and
> 1.75gb.. also, it was a very lean OS aimed at business.. no frills
>
> XP was twice as large again, but contained more features and a very
> different look.. it also proved to be more stable in the long run,
> although some diehards preferred to stay with what they knew..
>
> Vista isn't quite twice as much as XP, but has more features, much revised
> code..
>
> Vienna? Who knows for sure? But I doubt it will be even close to 100gb..
>
>
> "Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
> news:uDdgk8PlHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Dont believe me? See this graph I made with a possible "projection" to
>> year 2010 when the next version of windows will come out codenamed
>> "vienna"
>>
>> http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6651/graphic1sw0.jpg
>>
>> Did anyone say the word bloat??? :-)
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Mike Hall
> MS MVP Windows Shell/User
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
>
>
>

"Julian" <Julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3AB9E62C-CE5C-4864-9D93-5A7D94DE02BE@microsoft.com:

> "Tiberius" <J@T.K> wrote in message
> news:e9GPLLQlHHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Why should I post about other OS? I am comparing various versions of
>> windows...
>> The data of how much disk space is needed for each version of windows
>> is available,
>> why don't you look and see? Where are the lies?
>
> Oh I get it....
>
> You are demonstrating that Windows is becoming progressively
> less expensive in terms of storage as it growth isn't keeping up
> with the growth of disk space you get for a dollar.

I see that as a valid way to look at it.