Can Windows Get More Bloated?

Published on April 3, 2006 By MasonM In Personal Computing

PC World's Techlog has a short piece talking about the upcoming emergence of "Windows Vista Capable'
PCs.
"From the article: "The Vista Capable designation doesn't promise that a PC will
provide a great Vista experience, or even that it'll support all Vista
features or features...just that it'll be able to run Windows Vista Home
Basic in some not-very-well-defined-but-apparently-adequate way. At the
moment, there are still new PCs on store shelves that don't meet the
Vista Capable guidelines--for instance, low-end systems still sport 256MB
of RAM in some cases. Wonder if that means that that:
A) we'll see some cheap systems that still have XP even after Vista ships; or

the specs on even the cheapest machines will be beefed up; or

C) we'll see machines that have Vista preloaded but which don't qualify as Vista capable?"

Comments (Page 1)

Adamness

on Apr 03, 2006

I think it's a good thing Vista has high hardware requirements. I don't want something brand new to be run on hardware that's 3 or 4 years old.

Stinks for people who have computers that can't support it, but I don't think Microsoft should water Vista down to appease them.

Vista should take advantage of what's available now, and what will be available. Not what was available.

bakerstreet

on Apr 03, 2006

" I think it's a good thing Vista has high hardware requirements. I don't want something brand new to be run on hardware that's 3 or 4 years old."

As long as what eats the resources is of direct use to you, sure. You don't know how many computers I work on where people only Ebay, email, etc. They aren't interested in flashy UI or all the other bells and whistles. They don't need a new machine, and as a matter of fact they could be using an old 200 and never know the difference.

For instance, a gig of ram in XP is all I really need. Now I later switch to Vista, and I do the SAME work I did the week before, but I have less free ram to use. Why? If I want to keep on using XP, eventually I'll be punished when they stop supporting it and I have to switch up. So the people who could be using an old 200 drop 1k for a new machine just so they make MS happy enough to offer them support.

I like the bells and whistles, but when I am working on a 24x36 print quality image, they don't mean much to me, not nearly as much as the ram. Sure, I can go buy another gig of ram, and it won't be that much, but Microsoft is in the business of forcing people to buy the new OS, not offering the most efficient they can.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I'll probably always have a windows gaming rig, but the second someone offers another OS that runs my major apps, and is something lean, low-key, that devotes the ram to what I am working on and not a ton of other tertiary "features" that mean little to me, I'm going with that mainly.

Dr Guy

on Apr 03, 2006

Can Windows get more Bloated? Sure! Should it be? NO.

I understand their aversion to cleaning the code, but it is that old code that probably leads to the most security holes. I dont really mind a new OS that forces a hardware upgrade as computers need to be replaced about every 5 years (or sooner) now anyway (not like when the original IBM PC would still be running 10 years later). But an OS that needs 8gb of space to load? That is just bloat.

Kevin_C

on Apr 03, 2006

I understand their aversion to cleaning the code, but it is that old code that probably leads to the most security holes.

That old code is also what makes Windows compatible with the absolutely excessive amount of hardware it supports too.. The thing we windows users need to remember is that the bloat is partially for our benefit. MS has gone to great lengths and they spend FAR more money than any other software vendor making sure that their software works on a HUGE variety of hardware in thousands of configurations. Sure, MS could do what Apple does and every time they release a new OS they have 1 specific configuration that it will run on and everyone else can just forget about it. Would you prefer they take that approach? It would surely be easier for MS, they could reduce the number of developers in the Windows division by probably hundreds. They could develop their OSes 2-3 versions in advance, and it wouldn't matter if they wanted to completely change the underlying framework for every new version because the hardware you have today is guaranteed not to run their next version. I really don't think a lot of people understand what they are asking for when they suggest that MS "just start over".

But an OS that needs 8gb of space to load?

Why is that? I have games on my computer right now that are considerably larger than 8gb, and I don't get any of that space back unless I uninstall the game. Is a game a more logical use of HDD space than an OS? Why is it OK for a game to be enormous but an OS has to be miniscule or it gets berated. I don't know about your situation but I have 500GB of HDD space just in my main system and my file server is at 1.2TB, so what's 8 gigs? Besides is that the final size or is that just temp space it needs? With MS moving more towards .NET it's entirely possible that the Vista installer compiles some of the binaries for the OS as it installs in order to optimize it more for your system. Also, with the extra eye candy of Vista the resource files are bound to be quite a bit bigger than the XP resource files that use mostly Windows 98 era icons.

I for one am more concerned about whether or not I'll be able to access the data on my hard drives after removing Vista than about how much disk space it takes while I'm installing it.

MasonM

on Apr 03, 2006

System resources should be for running your applications and doing work, not just running the operating system. It's absurd.

bakerstreet

on Apr 03, 2006

I appreciate your perspective, Kevin, and honestly I appreciate all the bells and whistles that are coming. It doesn't change the fact, though, that what the average person is doing with their PC right now isn't much different than what they were doing when everyone was using a less-than-1g processor with 256 megs of ram. For that matter even less.

We should be open to new tasks, all the multimedia, etc. But in the end if we WANT to run the lightest, most spartan OS we can and do the simple work we have always done, we should have an option. Especially since they seem so open to selling multiple versions of their OS now.

As for drivers and whatnot, it's really rare that I end up with what Windows has available natively. I always end up using the drivers that came with the hardware, and even downloading the newest after that. The question for me remains, if I use an older computer to do certain tasks, why would I need a newer computer to do those same tasks?

thomassen

on Apr 03, 2006

Well, for those who only read emails, browse the internet organize pictures etc, they don't have to upgrade to Vista. They can stick with what they have. And if they buy a new machine it'll be able to run Vista anyways. I will run Vista on my main computer for when I'm doing my design work, 3D modelling and gaming. But I'll most likely get a second PC to have in the living room, prolly use a miniITX board and install Linux on it.

And with most effects in Vista there are ways to disable it. You can run Vista in classic mode if you like. You do have the issue with bundled software that isn't allways that easy to uinstall though. You have to do a normal install and then go about uninstalling whatever you dont want. It'd be nice with an option from the setup.

The drivers that comes with Windows will at least let you to use the hardware to some extent.

And the answer to your last question is: You don't have to get a new machine or OS if you feel what you got does the job. But you can be damn sure the marketing department of any hardware or software manufacturer will try very hard to convince you that you do.

For what I do with the computer I can see many benefit for Vista. At least for my main system which I'll be using to do my work.

bakerstreet

on Apr 03, 2006

" Well, for those who only read emails, browse the internet organize pictures etc, they don't have to upgrade to Vista. "

Not if they want their product supported by Microsoft.

"For what I do with the computer I can see many benefit for Vista. At least for my main system which I'll be using to do my work."

Perhaps I'll feel that way too if they show me features that make what I am doing now easier, or run the software that I am using more effectively. Otherwise, it's just more resources to the OS and less for what I am doing.

Kevin_C

on Apr 03, 2006

Bakerstreet,

I completely understand where you're coming from but I don't really see how it's Microsoft's problem. Does Apple or any other major software vendor support their software for as long as MS does now? Let's be honest with ourselves, XP is getting on in years it's been out for something like 5 years now. Can you get a copy of any Apple OS from 5 or more years ago and give their support line a call and get technical support for it? I highly doubt it. If people don't want to upgrade their PC's and they don't want to upgrade their OS then they don't have to. What support are you going to need for an OS that is that old anyway? I doubt you'll even be able to use new hardware that is released because it will be developed to support the latest and greatest OS that is out and hardware vendors are unlikely to release drivers for XP. So, you'll probably be stuck in time with whatever drivers are available at a point around 6 months after Vista is released (just picking a random timeframe).

This is kind of what I was talking about. Windows users have gotten used to MS pampering us by supporting our obsolete hardware and software indefinitely. MS has decided as much as they may not want to, that they are going to limit this to some extent. It's the way the rest of the OS makers have handled business since day 1, those of us that use windows just haven't had to really deal with the realities of it until now. It'll cause some growing pains no doubt, but hopefully the newer code base will give windows some of the modularity it sorely needs to expand (feature wise) at a faster rate.

For lots of windows users this new approach is going to be hard to take because as you;'ve said most people only do very basic computing, and it just doesn't make sense for them to have to buy the latest and greatest in hardware to check their e-mail and bid on auctions on E-bay. We'll just have to wait to see how it all pans out. Maybe MS will make a bare-bones version of Vista available to that segment of the market.

bakerstreet

on Apr 03, 2006

Nah, I don't have a problem with them dropping support; it's understandable. I just think the reality of the computing experience for the average home user, and ESPECIALLY the average business user escapes them. When they talk "business" they talk about videoconferencing, prokect management, etc., but the average machine in a business is in a cubicle wielded by a drone doing the same thing they were doing 10 years ago.

I just think they would do a service to the user, themselves, and their reputation if they offered the reliability of the newest kernel and file system, and then let us decide if we want to pay for, and devote resources to, the bells and whistles they feel make their OS shine.

Nothing cements their BSOD reputation like your computer crashing or limping along, only to find that it is a bunch of unneccessary "features" that you didn't even ask for to blame. The everything to everyone thing just makes the OS look like a one man band, imho.

thomassen

on Apr 03, 2006

Apparently over 90% of the BSODs are due to faulty third party drivers. Most of them graphics drivers.

You mentioned that you want the OS let you do your task more efficiently, Vista has most of the work done under the hood. The GUI is just the tip of the iceberg. And I can imagine that one of the reason Windows made Aero is because so many people tend to set up their opinion from what they see on the screenshots and not from a feature list.

Adamness

on Apr 03, 2006

I was really skeptical of Vista when the first information came out. I thought it was just XP with a new look. But there have been some articles and links on WC, and a few others, and it looks like Vista will have so much more to offer than a new GUI. The GUI is the least of what impresses me.

You can turn off most of the 'unnecessary' things. I read that a guy got his used memory down to 45MB by optimizing everything.

But as I said, Microsoft shouldn't create a new OS just to be run on old hardware. A year after Vista comes out, many computers will be at the performance level of the high end computers at first release.

More people will buy a computer with Vista in the years after it's release, then when it first comes out, and it should be made to run well and take advantage of the new and future technology.

Microsoft would love to just deal with the OS itself, and leave out support for old hardware and software. They also would love to not have to deal with anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall, email, IE, media player, etc., but most people probably don't want to go searching around for compatable hard and software, as well as downloading and buying security and utility software. It's hard to fault them for trying to give their customers a complete package.

Kevin_C

on Apr 03, 2006

Ok Bakerstreet, I think I see where you're coming from.. You're suggesting maybe MS would benefit from offering a small business version of the OS? I think I would agree with you on that, an smaller footprint version that just works. Having workedin the "corporate" IT industry for going on 10 years I can see how that would be helpful to many companies big and small. Even in companies that do high tech work there are inevitably folks who don't need the same level of wow in their daily computing. I think I could buy into your ideas! Now, all you need to do is sell MS, heck they made a special version for the EU why not a version for small businesses, they have office small business.

Cheers!

bakerstreet

on Apr 03, 2006

exactly. I don't differ with them making whatever they want, and I don't differ with them halting support on old software. The combination of the two, though, at least in my opinion, leaves the vast majority of their customers buying hardware they really don't need. If MS was Apple, that would certainly make sense, but to me it seems that the added expense of updating hardware would make people LESS apt to upgrade to their new OS, not more.

Since I first commented I've been trying to notice what they are using when I go into businesses. So far I see on average computers that are 3+ years old, and Windows 2000 has been the norm. It seems like if you were really, really interested in giving people the incentive to upgrade to a new OS that they probably don't need to do what they are doing now, you'd prefer not to ask them to also roll out very new hardware as well.

Adamness

on Apr 03, 2006

Microsoft made a special version for the EU because they were forced to. It would be great if we could get a version with out the anti-spyware, firewall, media player, IE, older soft/hardware support, etc. not installed, but that's likely not going to happen. They were basically forced to develop all the 'extras' by people who didn't want to, or couldn't find them on their own, so now we have to deal with it. Windows Barebones sounds good to me, and maybe to a few of you, but it wastes the time of Microsoft developers, and the money of Microsoft. If they made it, they're going to make us have it whether we like it or not.

leaves the vast majority of their customers buying hardware they really don't need

A lot people could probably still be using computers 10 years old with Win95, and they'd be just as happy. From a business point of view, that doesn't amount to sales. Microsoft has to keep pace as hardware progresses.

the added expense of updating hardware would make people LESS apt to upgrade to their new OS, not more.

Yes, Vista will be sold bundled with computers in the months and years after its initial release, rather than as upgrades from XP, and people buying a new computer right when Vista comes out. But this is also why Microsoft should make Vista run well with hardware that is a year or more ahead of its time. Otherwise the Vista software will be obsolete when compared to the hardware.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!