That is CORRECT to much bloatware an operation system does not need to be GB's in size an example is programs within the system that ask me IF I want to really install a program after I click on the install button, of course I do if I didn't, I wouldn't had clicked the install button in the first place, how stupid can programmers be, just nonsense like this,and many other things that need to be stripped out of it to make it a viable system, I have a Windows xp system "Windows folder" that is around 200 MB in size My next system will most likely be something like Puppy Linux
I think the reason why UAC asks if you want to install a software is because sometimes unknown programs can run without your permission.
That might be true but there are more intelligence ways to handle it, than asking me if I want to install something that I had just clicked the install button on, but that was just a example, the list could just go on forever What you really need is a modular operator system where you just install the core and add only things that you want, of course this would be called true choice, something sadly lacking in the today's computer environment
Is there too much bloatware? Yes there is. Does it matter? Most definately not. Hard drives are so cheap and large in size theses days, and RAM is so cheap it does not matter at all. For example I'm running Windows 8 on a 6 year old laptop with highly underpowered onboard Intel graphics, and it runs just as fast you would think it is running on a brand new Windows 8 laptop, not one which is 6 years old! UAC is an important security function added in Vista to help prevent malware from running. I wouldn't call increased security as being "stupid." What's more, if you don't like UAC, it takes less than 10 seconds to disable it permanently - not hard at all. ~Off topic comments removed~ There are so many improvements in Windows 7, Windows 8 and even Vista that I don;t see why anyone would call XP better. In fact I consider Vista to be a massive improvement over XP.
That's not a reasonable choice for an OS intended for popular usage. BTW, Windows can be made modular, one can make his own ISO with only what he considers essential components. There is many software that can help with this process. For Windows 8, there is Win Toolkit (Support Forum).
In other words, go ahead and waste it because there's plenty. If the additional disk space and RAM consumed did something useful for the user, that logic might make sense. Wasting it just because it exists only serves to make older hardware unusable. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the primary reason for the constantly increasing consumption. On XP and earlier versions of Windows, utilities were available that enabled you to strip out the unnecessary components. My XP system uses just over 3GB, including several hundred megabytes of downloads on the desktop and is much faster than a fresh install. My primary OS uses just over 1GB of the hard drive. Linux comes close to being that modular system. A user has to be fairly knowledgeable to strip it down but that was true with stripping Windows as well. IMO, a modular OS is not an option for the average user, not without a major redesign. As is, the components are far too interconnected to work with a "pick the parts you want" system. It amazes me to see statements like "if you install one of the various programs which bring back the start menu" being used to promote an OS. Equally funny are the "if you take the time to get used to it" comments. If I'm going to invest the time necessary to learn a new setup, I'll spend it learning one that I can build, equip, and strip the bloat out of. It'll be on an OS that's made to coexist with other operating systems, not one that deliberately makes it more difficult. I'm just about ready to upgrade my operating systems now. Just need to make some room. The only real decision I have to make is whether I'm adding one OS or 2. Mint Xfce will be installed shortly. ATM, I'm undecided on PCBSD but I do like what I'm seeing so far. Both should easily fit into the space that Win 7 or 8 would use and won't require nearly as much RAM just to run the OS.
~Off topic comments removed~ I'm not interested in learning that bloated system because the way I got XP set up would run circles around Windows 7, how do I know, I had both installed and XP "modded and tweaked" will run with any dog you want to put in the race with that being said, I know XP is getting old, that's why I will be going Linux for my next operation system not some bloated crapware ~Off topic comments removed~
This is my system with ALL programs install that I have a need for of course I have 1650GB of space on external drives that I keep my data on my windows folder was less than 200MB when I first modded my xp system and installed it
"On XP and earlier"... BS. This has remained true for all Windows versions, there are tools available to strip down even Windows 8 and I just pointed to one in my last post here.
I'm assuming that you strip down Windows XP for performance reasons in order to make heavy commercial games run faster, not only to economize on pointless cheap disk space. If what I'm assuming is true, Windows 7 or 8 would improve your experience, depending on the hardware, thanks to core improvements, optimizations and better drivers unavailable for XP. Moving to Linux won't improve your experience, as Linux's video drivers and heavy commercial games' support are simply many years behind Windows' ones in development maturity (performance, features and stability). Just to note, again: if you are neurotic about OS components that you don't have a use for, you can strip down Windows 7 or 8, there are tools that help with it, like Win Toolkit (Support Forum).
A contradiction? Maybe. I had reservations against .NET when I was running XP. Needless to say, Vista and above includes .NET by default. That's fact - be it ugly or not. Now, some here insist that later version of Windows are "bloated". I have to agree. For my use, there's too much stuff that I don't need which are included. Yet, some of the 'bloat' actually helped improve user experience - a form of evil necessity if I'm going to stretch things. I'm talking about things like driver support and DLL hell....things which have been "improved" in later versions of Windows (which contributes to the 'bloat') WinSXS folder is one of them.. http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html Now of course, some techies will disagree. I understand but I was talking in context of users who do not know any better and are lazy to find things manually. Now, Windows is marketed for a wide audience. There's the general users, the entertainment buffs, the system admins (who want/need all those enterprise tools), etc. Different uses warrants different needs and wants. What some consider as 'need' is another's 'garbage'. No need to go far - check out the list of services enabled by default in Windows XP and later. MS has, to some extent, done what they think fits. Whether they're right in doing so is anyone's debate. They offer different editions of Windows to cater to different audiences (e.g. Home, Pro, Enterprise) MS also removed stuffs they think are not needed by many and offered them as downloads instead. Things like Windows Live Essentials and Media Center (for Win8 ) are some examples. Know what? Turns out that you can't please everyone - search around and you'll find people complaining. Some say that it's confusing while others say it's a plot by MS to make more money. I'm not saying people are wrong - they have rights to voice out. Maybe I'm biased as I'm one of them. I find it disgusting that they didn't offer Applocker on Win8 Pro for example. Being modular is ideal but that means getting users more involved in a decision making process. Not to mention - downloading stuffs. Then there's the issue of price tag. People pay for the OS and yet is it justified to put too little in it by default? Too many variables...it's difficult to say. Disclaimer: Not yet 'upgraded' to Win8. Definitely no affiliations with MS whatsoever.
That isn't a tool to remove whatever you define (with your almost always wrong partial definitions) as "bloat" from an existing installation. It can, however, help in making a very customized Windows 7 or 8 ISO with only the components you define (with your almost always wrong partial definitions!) as necessary.
Well I have put net framework 2 on my system and have no intention on going above that because of the bloat in version 3 or above Thanks for the link to the stripping tool for win 7 & 8 but I think it will take a lot more than that tool provides, but I have not tried this tool out yet It's possible I may sit down one day and start working on stripping Win 7, I know this will be a ""involved" process and not looking forward to it I just think it may be time to consider Linux because even if you stripped Win 7 or 8 the next version will even be more bloated
I hate to burst your bubble, but linux is getting more and more bloated these days too. And linux isn't going to please the masses, only a few who will put up with the bugs and lack of quality control, and who are willing to do what's necessary to get it working as desired...
""I hate to burst your bubble, but linux is getting more and more bloated these days too"" There are many version of Linux and not all of them are bloated
I haven't and don't plan to either. Evidently not many have either http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023480/windows-8s-uptake-falls-behind-vistas-pace.html.
