- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Intel taps student's robot for processor demo
|
|
|
Comments (32)
12 earlier comments in the full thread.
Oh, darnit, those dates; I'm even four years older than I was already afraid of.
One of these days...
I've been meaning to figure out WHY a base Windows install takes so much disk space and compare what they actually install to what comes in, for example Ubuntu... Surely all that space must be used for SOMETHING? Is it anything anyone actually uses?
I've been meaning to figure out WHY a base Windows install takes so much disk space and compare what they actually install to what comes in, for example Ubuntu... Surely all that space must be used for SOMETHING? Is it anything anyone actually uses?
> Is it anything anyone actually uses?
The guy 4000 miles away waiting to control your computer.
The guy 4000 miles away waiting to control your computer.
SJ: You're not the only one. XP - the last MS OS I used - can be put on a diet, and in fact it's really amazing how much can be left away. Once when partitioning I believed 1,5GB should be enough for XP, but 'out of the box' it isn't. Apply some tricks and it can be done however. LXer is probably not the best place to ask, but let my try to help:
-First there's the 'mempage', called 'swap' in Linux. You can control how big it is, and you can put it on another drive if you want. It can be compared to Linux's swapfile. Depending on its size, you can save about 300M. -Then, there's the 'dll-backup'. There is a large number of dll's that are protected against 'deletion' There's a backup of them in dll-cache. Using any means of bypassing Windows boot, you can delete those. Again, you can save about 200M or something like that. -Same for service pack files: There's a cache of those, which can be deleted as well. -There's some 'Windows File Protection' making sure you cannot delete unused cruft like MS Gaming Zone, Video conversation and stuff like that. Take any LiveCD (Linux?) and you can delete those.
With tools like nLite or BartPE (note: Legality of those is disputed) you can leave out other cruft like IE. When done, it will have the same amount of 'usability' while saving about 30% of HD space.
Ubuntu is probably not a good example of efficiency, it's kind of bloated too in my opinion.
-First there's the 'mempage', called 'swap' in Linux. You can control how big it is, and you can put it on another drive if you want. It can be compared to Linux's swapfile. Depending on its size, you can save about 300M. -Then, there's the 'dll-backup'. There is a large number of dll's that are protected against 'deletion' There's a backup of them in dll-cache. Using any means of bypassing Windows boot, you can delete those. Again, you can save about 200M or something like that. -Same for service pack files: There's a cache of those, which can be deleted as well. -There's some 'Windows File Protection' making sure you cannot delete unused cruft like MS Gaming Zone, Video conversation and stuff like that. Take any LiveCD (Linux?) and you can delete those.
With tools like nLite or BartPE (note: Legality of those is disputed) you can leave out other cruft like IE. When done, it will have the same amount of 'usability' while saving about 30% of HD space.
Ubuntu is probably not a good example of efficiency, it's kind of bloated too in my opinion.
Quoting: One of these days...
I've been meaning to figure out WHY a base Windows install takes so much disk space and compare what they actually install to what comes in, for example Ubuntu... Surely all that space must be used for SOMETHING? Is it anything anyone actually uses?
I don't know about XP but from what I hear Vista installs a lot of "extras." Every Vista install installs all the "goodies" that would be included with the Ultimate edition, even if you only have Home Basic. The idea is that if you upgrade you don't have to download the other x gigs of bullshit they just sold you.
Quoting:I don't know about XP but from what I hear Vista installs a lot of "extras."Including DRM.
@gus3
Aye it does.
Aye it does.
Quoting:Ubuntu is probably not a good example of efficiency, it's kind of bloated too in my opinion.I installed ubuntu 8.04 LTS server on a 9 year old compaq tower with 256 MB RAM. 450 Mhz CPU and a 9 GB disk drive. After setting it up as the firewall, vpn, dns, dhcp server and smtp relay for our domain, ubuntu was using less than 1 GB disk space, and performance was good. I have no idea how you can call that bloated.
> First there's the 'mempage', called 'swap' in Linux. You can control how big it is, and you can put it on another drive if you want.
Hmm, I thought the system drive had to have a mimimal swap file on it, of at least 2 MB. Maybe that was only for NT though.
Hmm, I thought the system drive had to have a mimimal swap file on it, of at least 2 MB. Maybe that was only for NT though.
Technically you can run windows with no swap.
However it often doesn't run very well without one, and some applications require a swap to be present.
Quoting:I have no idea how you can call that bloated.
Just compare compiling a Linux kernel to compiling a MINIX 3 kernel (including core-servers): The latter is done within 8 sec. And I'm pretty sure if you made the same server using NetBSD (or Gentoo maybe?) it wouldn't require 1 GB either. It's all your frame of reference I guess, Ubuntu Server by default gives you lots of extra's you might not need. Moreover, simplicity wasn't one of the design goals of Linux.
Quoting:Just compare compiling a Linux kernel to compiling a MINIX 3 kernel (including core-servers): The latter is done within 8 sec.That's the difference between a microkernel and a macrokernel. I'd expect the tiny little minix kernel to be compiled within seconds.
Quoting: And I'm pretty sure if you made the same server using NetBSD (or Gentoo maybe?) it wouldn't require 1 GB either.Like I said, you can find distros or OSes than take even less space, but that hardly puts ubuntu on the bloated end of the scale.
Quoting:It's all your frame of reference I guess, Ubuntu Server by default gives you lots of extra's you might not need.I can't think of anything unneeded in the default ubuntu server install - it's pretty basic, compared to say, Suse, which I ran for years before switching to ubuntu - but let's get practical and compare ubuntu to microsoft windows: No contest.
Quoting:Moreover, simplicity wasn't one of the design goals of Linux.it is probably as you say - the main goals seem to have been functionality and performance, though ISTR that according to Linus it was all really just for fun.
Because Ubuntu is less bloated than Windows doesn't make it efficient.
It's just that both the Linux kernel, glibc, gcc and Xorg support a lot, and supporting a lot can be considered bloat by those who like optimizing some piece of software for some particular device.
BTW gcc vs. cc is where the biggest difference between the MINIX / Linux compile times is (gcc can be considered bloated as well, or feature - rich, depending on POV), not micro vs. macrokernel. That's why I mentioned 'core servers' for MINIX as well, but true, since it doesn't have 'modules' to support all kinds of different hardware it also makes a difference.
It's just that both the Linux kernel, glibc, gcc and Xorg support a lot, and supporting a lot can be considered bloat by those who like optimizing some piece of software for some particular device.
BTW gcc vs. cc is where the biggest difference between the MINIX / Linux compile times is (gcc can be considered bloated as well, or feature - rich, depending on POV), not micro vs. macrokernel. That's why I mentioned 'core servers' for MINIX as well, but true, since it doesn't have 'modules' to support all kinds of different hardware it also makes a difference.
Quoting: Because Ubuntu is less bloated than Windows doesn't make it efficientI wouldn't have imagined that anyone would try to imply or infer that - but more to the point, ubuntu is less bloated than some other popular linux distros which I've had experience with.
So again, while I never claimed that ubuntu was the most extreme example of leanness and sparseness, it's hardly on the bloated end of the scale - far from it, ubuntu is one of the leaner server installs I've seen. I have to ask, is there an axe to grind here?
Quoting:It's just that both the Linux kernel, glibc, gcc and Xorg support a lotThat's as may be, but keep in mind that there is no xorg in the ubuntu server install - and the kernel is modular, so the drivers are loaded dynamically, as needed. Even if there kernel source contains the code for 42 million device drivers, only the drivers for the 11 devices actually present in your system are loaded.
Quoting:the kernel is modular, so the drivers are loaded dynamically, as needed. Even if there kernel source contains the code for 42 million device drivers, only the drivers for the 11 devices actually present in your system are loaded.But they still need non-volatile storage, whether that's on a live CD, or the hard drive, or in EEPROM somewhere.
Also, I keep seeing "Ubuntu Server" mentioned. Is that a separate, Ubuntu-derived distro like Kubuntu and EduBuntu, or is it simply an install option for the Ubuntu live CD?
I have assumed that, in the absence of any qualifiers, "Ubuntu" refers just to the desktop version. The CNet article makes no mention of anything other than "Ubuntu."
Quoting:I keep seeing "Ubuntu Server" mentioned. Is that a separate, Ubuntu-derived distro like Kubuntu and EduBuntu, or is it simply an install option for the Ubuntu live CD?Well, it's not a derived distro, but the official canonical product, and not an install option for the ubuntu desktop CD, but a separate CD. If you go to ubuntu.com for download, you can choose 32 or 64 bit, and you can choose desktop or server. Unlike e.g. Suse, where everything comes on 1 giant DVD.
Ubuntu server and desktop, while derived from the same source code, are built differently, and have different package sets. The desktop is oriented towards the desktop experience, while the server is a lean, text-only install. The kernel builds are different as well - AFAIK it's the same source code, but different kernel build options are chosen for server vs desktop.
Personally, I think what Ubuntu should do is when the user install, have a choice for basic or advance installation. In advance mode, it can install dependencies packages, then let the user select which app to be installed.
I always thought it was legal to use nLite as long as you own license copy, but I don't know if the process of stripping stuff down breaks the EULA . Certainly computer shops are has been installing a new copy of Windows to a customer PC, but reuse their product key.
Warning: below are tips about using Windows. If you do not want to use Windows, do not read.
For Windows 7 / Vista, you can do three basic things to immediately gain 2-8gb of free space: -Disable System Restore, since it backup virus as well. -Run Command Prompt as Administer mode and type this to disable hibernation: power -h off *The hibernation file is usually 2-4gb. If you disable hibernation in the GUI menu, it will not delete this file from C: root, the command above will. -If you have 4gb of ram, you can just disable pagefile completely. Some people say this lead to problems, but I never had any problems. Could possibly lead to compatibility issue for some apps, if then just enable some. If you set the minimum and maximum size the same, it system won't waste time resizing the page file.
I am not going to bored you too much more, but there is an instruction and script on how to slim down Windows 7 as well: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/137765-windows-7-rtm-32-64-b... Though it is inevitable in the future there will be a GUI tool like vLite for 7. I took that script and edit things to made the things actually compatible, since it removed and breaks important features. Also the script allow to mount the registry of the install image and (beside from some very harmful things that can be done in the wrong hand) I can edit the registries to do things like enable desktop icons and disable animations by default.
Anyway, my image ended up installing in 10minutes through USB drive and takes up 2.4gb. Though this do not compare to installing Ubuntu which takes approximately 3minutes.
I always thought it was legal to use nLite as long as you own license copy, but I don't know if the process of stripping stuff down breaks the EULA . Certainly computer shops are has been installing a new copy of Windows to a customer PC, but reuse their product key.
Warning: below are tips about using Windows. If you do not want to use Windows, do not read.
For Windows 7 / Vista, you can do three basic things to immediately gain 2-8gb of free space: -Disable System Restore, since it backup virus as well. -Run Command Prompt as Administer mode and type this to disable hibernation: power -h off *The hibernation file is usually 2-4gb. If you disable hibernation in the GUI menu, it will not delete this file from C: root, the command above will. -If you have 4gb of ram, you can just disable pagefile completely. Some people say this lead to problems, but I never had any problems. Could possibly lead to compatibility issue for some apps, if then just enable some. If you set the minimum and maximum size the same, it system won't waste time resizing the page file.
I am not going to bored you too much more, but there is an instruction and script on how to slim down Windows 7 as well: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/137765-windows-7-rtm-32-64-b... Though it is inevitable in the future there will be a GUI tool like vLite for 7. I took that script and edit things to made the things actually compatible, since it removed and breaks important features. Also the script allow to mount the registry of the install image and (beside from some very harmful things that can be done in the wrong hand) I can edit the registries to do things like enable desktop icons and disable animations by default.
Anyway, my image ended up installing in 10minutes through USB drive and takes up 2.4gb. Though this do not compare to installing Ubuntu which takes approximately 3minutes.
> ...I always thought it was legal to use nLite as long as you own license copy...
That's my understanding, yes. There's little doubt Bart'sPE requires an unused license, though I've heard some argue that a concurrent license (i.e., you can use it as your licensed copy if your machine is turned off) is adequate.
That's my understanding, yes. There's little doubt Bart'sPE requires an unused license, though I've heard some argue that a concurrent license (i.e., you can use it as your licensed copy if your machine is turned off) is adequate.
Quoting:ubuntu is less bloated than some other popular linux distros which I've had experience with.
I immediately believe you, apart from Gentoo, a tiny bit of Slackware and the BSD's there's not much else I've had experience with, especially not server distro's. I thought Debian did pretty well too, if you do some kind of 'expert' install like where you can disable anything like some people told me (I'm sorry, but I'm always lost in those menu-driven installs where you have to do some trick to break out of the 'default install').
Nonetheless, the first time I installed OpenBSD (as a desktop user who never saw a server and anything but Windows) all text-only apps were less then 1 MB, so if Ubuntu server fills multiple hundreds of MB's with text only apps, I'm still a bit confused as to where it goes. Probably some cache files, tmp files and Apache or something?
It might have been I was a bit brainwashed after coming out of the presentation of Mr. Tanenbaum (and some other 10KB-kernels) though.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
No, that was the 2000 election. The 2004 election was close, but not that close.
> ...but didn't know CBS was involved.
CBS aired a report concerning George Bush's military service which was later shown to be fraudulent. It was rather obvious as events transpired that Rather let his personal views get in the way of proper journalism, and that he wasn't countermanded by any of his superiors.