Disk space observations

[jdhurst]

I have been using computers since the PC1, Internet since 1994 and Netscape 0.9, and VMware since it came out (somewhere around 1999). So I am well used to Virtual Machines and assigning space to them.

Here is the list up to the end of 2009:
1. PC DOS 6.3 VisiCalc, and 1-2-3 26Mb (0.03Gb)
2. Windows 98 SE, Office 97, IE6 1.6Gb
3. Windows NT4 Workstation, Office 97, IE6 1.0Gb
4. Windows 2000, Office 2000, IE6 4.4Gb (Notice the trend)
5. Windows XP, Office XP, IE8 11.7Gb
6. RedHat Linux 7.3, Star Office 3.9Gb
7. RedHat Linux 9, Star Office 4.3Gb
8. SuSE 9 Linux, Star Office, 6Gb
9. Ubuntu 6.06 Linux, Star Office, 5.5Gb

So at this point, notice I can start a machine, assign 10Gb and build one. XP easily touched that limit, and so I used the new(ish) VMware Converter tool and boosted it to 50Gb and some of the other machines up to 20Gb.

Now most of these machines have other software (WinZip or equivalent, Adobe Reader or equivalent, WS_FTP or equivalent, and other tools), so that any one machine stands on its own as a complete and workable machine.

Now that I am in Windows 7, I thought it time to get a Vista VM. I got a Vista Business license for $60 on eBay and made a new machine. I put Office 2007 on the Vista machine as I expect to upgrade my real machines to Office 2010 when it is released.

Punch line: The Vista Business machine and Office (no Adobe, no WinZip, no data files, nothing) is over 40Gb. Given that one could survive quite handily on Windows 2000 forward in the above list, that is 30Gb used in Vista that has no value of any kind. Who knows what the software writers were thinking, or indeed if they were even thinking at all.
... JDH

[bill bolton]

Punch line: The Vista Business machine and Office (no Adobe, no WinZip, no data files, nothing) is over 40Gb

You have something very wrong somewhere then.

I have Windows 7 Ultimate x64, plus Office 2007, plus Acrobat Professional, plus Nero 9 and a WHOLE BUNCH of other applications, plus a few GB of my wife's teaching materials on our desktop system HDD and it is taking ~40GB.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[qviri]

Punch line: The Vista Business machine and Office (no Adobe, no WinZip, no data files, nothing) is over 40Gb. Given that one could survive quite handily on Windows 2000 forward in the above list, that is 30Gb used in Vista that has no value of any kind. Who knows what the software writers were thinking, or indeed if they were even thinking at all.

Seconding Bill Bolton -- I had a 40 GB hard drive come with Vista Ultimate installed on it and it was far from full. No Office, but even 2007 is not that large. Are you sure there aren't any backups or roll-back points kicking around?

As an aside, that Windows 2000 drive looks kind of large. It's been a couple of years, but I recall mine closer to the 1 GB mark. Then again I didn't have IE6.

I found a five year old piece of paper on which I planned out a partitioning scheme for a 17 GB drive when I was home over the Christmas break. It was downright adorable, I think I had planned for 4 or 5 operating systems (98, 2000, and various UNIX-likes), none on a partition larger than 2 GB. Now I'm content W7 is under 20 GB...

[jdhurst]

I think my Vista measurement is correct. All uninstalls are in place (SP2 plus) and that takes space. Shadow Storage is taking 8Gb. I could eliminate Shadow Storage and I would be down to 32Gb. Otherwise, Vista is a hog on disk (as I know from my real Vista machine (now gone). Windows 7 on the other hand is not as hard on disk (I am using Windows 7 now). I have defragged the Vista VM and tightened up, so I think the usage is what it is. The download for Office I used was Office 2007 Pro Plus and disk space balloned 7Gb when I installed that, so I think Pro Plus is quite a bit bigger than Pro simple. ... JDH

[bill bolton]

Vista is a hog on disk (as I know from my real Vista machine (now gone). Windows 7 on the other hand is not as hard on disk (I am using Windows 7 now).

I can't see any difference at all between equivalent versions of Vista and Win 7 in terms of disk space consumption on any of my systems.

Cheers,

Bill

[jdhurst]

I got Windows 7 going, all my files and copied over the virtual machines from Vista. At that point Windows 7 had used a lot less disk (10Gb or more less). I don't know what causes the difference. One reason for me upgrading to a 500 Gb drive is that I had all I needed on XP in 50Gb on a 60Gb disk. I thought 200Gb would be ample for Vista, but I quickly used up more than half without expanding my VM store. Stuff is just getting bigger, I guess. I tend also to keep a large file store (over 3Gb) and I have that on my Vista VM. I could trim it down to 32, maybe 30Gb, but never 20Gb. ... JDH