Yesterday XP, Today Win 7, Tomorrow Win 8, Day after tomorrow what?

[rraod]

As I write this post on notepad on a barebones Windows 7 with no other applications running, I noticed the memory consumption is 476 MB.

Out of curiosity I compared this with the same article in notepad on a similar barebones Win XP with no applications running, and the memory consumption is only 91.4 MB.

I see a five fold increase in memory requirement!

An operating system is just a layer between hardware and user applications. This layer should be lean and not consume lots of system resources by itself.

The role of an OS is to support different applications both local and network.... including file management, internet browsing and internet applications efficiently ... at the same time providing a secure environment and an easy to use, user friendly GUI.

Once the GUI and the menu system are perfected and users are comfortable with these features, there is no need to change the placement of existing features.

It seems Microsoft is rearranging these menu structure just to show a new OS without any additional benefit.

Right from Windows 95, Microsoft is constantly rearranging the menu structure and options placement. Young people adapt to these changes very fast, but older people find it difficult to get used to each and every new iteration of the OS. This was one of the reason for hesitating to upgrade to the latest and greatest OS.

Whenever I upgrade to a new OS, it takes time to get used to the new system. I have to scratch my head thinking... "Where is that command or option?" to change a routine setting I used to do on the previous OS without thinking.

For example: In a new model of a car we don't have to struggle to find the controls for driving. Everything is in its place and anyone can easily adapt to the new car very easily.

Even the experts and power users sometimes find it difficult to adapt to the new folder structure in the user profiles.... For example: I was used to Windows XP for many years (I gave a slip to Vista :sarc: ) and now with Windows 7 I find it difficult to find the proper settings folder in my user profile. Microsoft has changed the profile folder names and structure entirely from Win XP to Win 7. I don't know the reason for changing this... But one thing I am sure of... Microsoft most probably will change this again... in Window 8.

Now some standard desktop icon names transition:

My Computer - Computer
My Documents - now "John" or "Mark" (User name)
Network Neighborhood - My Network Places - and now "Network"

So whatever I learned in Win 95, I was made to forget in Win NT and again in Win 2000... Win XP... Win 7 and the saga goes on.

We always welcome new features added to the OS. But we don't need a fat system with 5 different ways of doing the same task, and with many features most people hardly ever use. This will take up unnecessary system resources leaving the users with small systems high and dry ... forcing them to spend money again and again for upgradation.
Every user's requirement of Windows OS differs from each other. No body is using all the features of windows except enthusiasts and power users.

I wish Microsoft instead of making similar versions of windows like it did in windows 7, take a modular approach by giving users a bare OS with various options to add on depending on their requirements. Like an eyecandy GUI pack... network pack... multimedia pack... internet pack... language pack... system tool pack... etc.

This way everyone can have his/her PCs customized the way they need without all the unnecessary bloat of Microsoft Windows.

 

[Corazon]

AMEN!

Sadly, MS has an annoying habit of enabling lots of OS services by default that relatively few people will ever use...and what's always gotten to me is that it's either too hard or downright impossible to uninstall many components because of their forced design. Windows needs to be MUCH more modularized.

The biggest blunder IMHO is the winsxs folder, which is practically a complete copy of all possible editions of Windows and seems to serve only the purpose of never having to ever insert the DVD again if a missing component needs to be installed. And it just...SITS THERE wasting gigabytes of disk space. For today's HDs no problem, but for SSDs more so...and annoying when you can't make an image backup small enough to even fit on a single DVD. (though I barely manage to do so)

 

[DMHolt57]

How soon we forget the manual, command-line setup of hardware....lol. :devil:

 

[pparks1]

I see a five fold increase in memory requirement!

Of course, the amount of RAM standard in Windows XP was around 256MB. Today, it's rare to see a computer with any less than 2GB of RAM. So, the amount of RAM has increased 8x (at least). And 4GB of RAM can be had today for about $30...which is ridiculously cheap compared to RAM prices when Windows 95 was popular. So, at the end of the day, I don't see any problems with more and more ram being used.

Once the GUI and the menu system are perfected and users are comfortable with these features, there is no need to change the placement of existing features.

It seems Microsoft is rearranging these menu structure just to show a new OS without any additional benefit.

Technology companies who don't change and adopt often go out of business. Who would want new versions of Windows if they looked and ran just like Windows 95? Do you buy a new car, and make sure that it's almost identical to your old car????

older people find it difficult to get used to each and every new iteration of the OS.

There is no requirement that the older folks upgrade from their old OS's for each and every release. Look how long these older OS's are supported...some people skipped Vista entirely and are still on XP. That's been around for over 10 years now.

For example: In a new model of a car we don't have to struggle to find the controls for driving. Everything is in its place and anyone can easily adapt to the new car very easily.

Put an older person in a new modern car with digital heat controls and touch screens which control the radio, heat and navigation. There is a learning curve.

So whatever I learned in Win 95, I was made to forget in Win NT and again in Win 2000... Win XP... Win 7 and the saga goes on.

Be thankful you are not an IT worker like myself. I have to learn new desktops, new servers, new server hardware, new software, new products all day long, day in and day out. You get certified on one platform, and then you have to recertify on another. It's just the way of life in a technology field.

I wish Microsoft instead of making similar versions of windows like it did in windows 7, take a modular approach by giving users a bare OS with various options to add on depending on their requirements. Like an eyecandy GUI pack... network pack... multimedia pack... internet pack... language pack... system tool pack... etc.

The overwhelming majority of users would not want a barebones setup, they would prefer everything all in one place. It's only a few of us who would want to leave the OS as basic as that. I fully expect the vendor to cater to the majority of users and let us in the minority strip out what we want. Or, on your barebones machine, don't run Windows at all. Use Linux instead, it costs less and is typically more secure.

This way everyone can have his/her PCs customized the way they need without all the unnecessary bloat of Microsoft Windows.

I don't find Windows 7 to be full of bloat. In my opinion, it's the best running, best launch and best behaved version of Windows in Microsoft's entire history. With the exception of more disk space consumed and more ram needed (both of these are cheap..even SSD space), I don't see an issue.

 

[seavixen32]

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, rraod.

Don't get me wrong, I think Windows 7 is a great operating system, but it is very resource-hungry.

Like many older people, I've migrated in stages from Windows 3.1 to Windows 7 and at my age I'll be sticking with Windows 7 - the learning curves are wearing me out!

 

[Britton30]

There are the Starter, Home Basic, and Home premium Windows 7 editions for those who don't want all the bling Ultimate or Business has. windows 7 uses a lot more memory and more efficiently than previous editions too. Win 7 has Super Fetch, Windows Search and indexing all doing "grunt work" so users don't have to.

FYI, I'm 63 years old.

 

[strollin]

One of the reasons for different memory consumption in Vista and Win 7 vs XP is due to the pre-fetch cache. Win 7 manages memory differently than XP did so it's kind of like an oranges to apples comparison.

I'm 58 and have migrated from Win 1.0 as well as OS/2 1.0 and find dealing with the learning curve of the new versions invigorating. I currently have the Win 8 Preview installed and enjoy playing with the new Metro gui.

 

[z3r010]

Of course, the amount of RAM standard in Windows 95 was around 256MB.

95 was 8MB recommended, it wasn't until the XP days that 256's were routinely used.

 

[cluberti]

I see a five fold increase in memory requirement!

As previously mentioned, the average machine (as sold by OEMs since 2001, when XP released) comes with 2GB or more of RAM, which is an 8-fold increase. CPUs of that era were single-core CPUs running at approximately 700-800MHz, so comparing even to a relatively low-end Core2 Duo E4700 (from 2007, Vista-era) running at 2.6GHz, we've seen a speed increase 3.25x that of XP-era hardware, and double that with a real second core - effectively 6 - 7 times the hardware. People complain (wrongly) that Microsoft's "bloated" OS causes hardware to increase, but this really is inaccurate - the software is not keeping pace with the hardware, it is simply expanding to use available functionality.

An operating system is just a layer between hardware and user applications. This layer should be lean and not consume lots of system resources by itself.

An operating system is more than just a kernel, it's the kernel, the user-mode components, the APIs it exposes, the security it offers (or doesn't offer), and the applications used to support it. Look at the hubbub caused when Microsoft removed Windows Mail from Vista when Windows 7 was released - you'd think the world had ended! The reality is, most people (and those are probably not the ones frequenting tech sites such as this) expect an "Operating System" to allow them to operate their computer, but also to allow them to get things done. This generally includes the ability to browse the internet, access email, play movies/videos, and do other menial tasks not covered by the large software suites. In fact, most people also expect their OS to include security software, hence why Apple did this with Snow Leopard and why Microsoft will be doing this in Windows 8.

Once the GUI and the menu system are perfected and users are comfortable with these features, there is no need to change the placement of existing features.

Except the world of computing is evolving past fixed point desktops, or even mobile computers with keyboards - small form factors, battery life, and ease of access to applications are what people want. This means there will be more tablets, phones, and ultra-portable devices in the future (look at the 3rd world - heck, look at the iPad and Amazon Fire). The UI paradigms (start menu, taskbar, small icons, text menus, etc) weren't good designs back in the 80s and 90s, and they certainly aren't good touch designs today. Microsoft is trying to change their OS to deal with this new future, and that means a lot of things have to change if they're going to be touched by both fingers and mouse pointers. If you like the old UI paradigms, there will likely be software available for at least a decade or so after Windows 7 goes out of support and sale to allow you to use the computer the way you want, but bear in mind the longer you do, the less likely you are to be targeted by applications, drivers, and hardware updates. You become increasingly like Win9x is today - yes, it works, but it's a chore. In fact, it'll probably be worse, because touch isn't a fad, it's the future.

It seems Microsoft is rearranging these menu structure just to show a new OS without any additional benefit.

Again, I think you're living under a virtual rock here - sales of tablets and phones far surpass that of fixed computing devices nowadays, and Microsoft is a software company. They will make software for whatever hardware sells the most, and that is no longer the old-style PC or laptop. They still exist, and while they do in numbers Microsoft will try to accomodate those, but their days are numbered.

Right from Windows 95, Microsoft is constantly rearranging the menu structure and options placement. Young people adapt to these changes very fast, but older people find it difficult to get used to each and every new iteration of the OS. This was one of the reason for hesitating to upgrade to the latest and greatest OS.

Younger (and most middle-aged) people are the consumers who purchase the most, so they will always get preferential treatment. This is not something specific to software.

Whenever I upgrade to a new OS, it takes time to get used to the new system. I have to scratch my head thinking... "Where is that command or option?" to change a routine setting I used to do on the previous OS without thinking.

The commands have always been the same to get to these places, so not learning these and relying on an ever-changing UI is part of your problem. I would have expected someone older to have complaints about the changes in the command interpreter, not the UI .

For example: In a new model of a car we don't have to struggle to find the controls for driving. Everything is in its place and anyone can easily adapt to the new car very easily.

As previously mentioned, driving may be the same, but *everything else* has changed over the last 20 years. Cars are complex beings, and just because the pedals and wheels have stayed the same does not mean it's easy to go from one vehicle to another nowadays and know where everything is. A car is always a bad analogy to a PC issue .

Microsoft has changed the profile folder names and structure entirely from Win XP to Win 7. I don't know the reason for changing this... But one thing I am sure of... Microsoft most probably will change this again... in Window 8.

Microsoft changed to v2 profiles to handle things like larger profiles, user state virtualization, application compatibility (file and registry virtualization, shims, etc), and libraries and search. A lot of these are more enterprise-level changes, but libraries should make it easier for users to find and keep their files without having to know where on disk or in the filesystem they are. The fact you're fiddling with your profile folders and settings makes you a non-target - you're a techie, so you are expected to figure out how this stuff works . Also, v2 profiles do not change in Windows 8.

So whatever I learned in Win 95, I was made to forget in Win NT and again in Win 2000... Win XP... Win 7 and the saga goes on.

Now you're just exaggerating. NT4 knowledge directly translated to 2000 and XP, and Vista knowledge transfers to Windows 7 (and mostly, Windows 8 - the skin changes, but the stuff is still in there). Change for change's sake isn't usually good, but changes to adapt to a world that isn't 1995 anymore *is* a good thing. Maybe not for you, but for most of us, it is.

We always welcome new features added to the OS. But we don't need a fat system with 5 different ways of doing the same task, and with many features most people hardly ever use. This will take up unnecessary system resources leaving the users with small systems high and dry ... forcing them to spend money again and again for upgradation. Every user's requirement of Windows OS differs from each other. No body is using all the features of windows except enthusiasts and power users.

No one forces you to spend money on a new OS (and if you're buying a new machine, you're basically getting it for free), and Microsoft has different variants of their OS so you pay for what you use if you do want to upgrade. Wanting new features but not wanting a "fat system" are mutually-exclusive - there's no free lunch. Either you get features, more code, and more resource usage, or you get a shell and a nice "do what you want!".

I wish Microsoft instead of making similar versions of windows like it did in windows 7, take a modular approach by giving users a bare OS with various options to add on depending on their requirements. Like an eyecandy GUI pack... network pack... multimedia pack... internet pack... language pack... system tool pack... etc.

This way everyone can have his/her PCs customized the way they need without all the unnecessary bloat of Microsoft Windows.

And no one would purchase it, because 95% of the people out there don't have the time, energy, or know-how to do this. It's the reason Windows has become what it is today - it does what the vast majority of people want.

I feel your pain as a technology guy, and yes, I'm older - but instead of being a curmudgeon and saying "get off my lawn!", I've kept with the times. Yes, some day I will stop, but that will be my choice. I will not complain about it.

 

[Corazon]

Microsoft could still make it easier for power users to strip down their OS to what they really want/need and remove the rest. That's simply a question of design and component interoperability, and MS wouldn't lose anything by making it easier to do. But they make it intentionally difficult instead.

In the days of Win98 and then WinXP, a small company called LitePC had two fabulous tools (98lite and XPlite) that managed to split Windows up into components you could uninstall and reinstall at will...they allowed you to cut down a whole lot of slack. They did an awesome job with it (I used both versions over time) and I wish something like it existed for Vista/7. Sure, there's nLite and vLite but they don't go nearly as far as the LitePC apps did - and vLite officially doesn't support 7 at all

 

[pparks1]

95 was 8MB recommended, it wasn't until the XP days that 256's were routinely used.

Oopps....XP was what I meant. That's what the OP was going back to.

Microsoft could still make it easier for power users to strip down their OS to what they really want/need and remove the rest. That's simply a question of design and component interoperability, and MS wouldn't lose anything by making it easier to do. But they make it intentionally difficult instead.

I'm unsure why a "power user" would want to strip their machine down to nothing. I assume you are expressing the desire to run the lowest load possible and thus increase performance of your running apps. But I don't think these things go directly hand in hand. For example, if you feel the extra 400MB or so from the OS running is really hammering photoshop, why not open your PC and put in 512MB more RAM and tell us how much better it is? My guess is it wouldn't change at all. And most of us "power users" aren't using just enough to get by, but systems that are far overkill in most cases. I just don't see a huge benefit to reducing the OS down to just the absolute components and nothing else.

I used to believe in the past that turning off aero, shutting off transparencies and such made my computer faster. Time tests say otherwise, as now it's not my GPU doing the computational but rather my CPU. So, my attempts at tweaking actually slowed down the machine overall.

 

[cluberti]

Microsoft could still make it easier for power users to strip down their OS to what they really want/need and remove the rest. That's simply a question of design and component interoperability, and MS wouldn't lose anything by making it easier to do. But they make it intentionally difficult instead.

They would lose nothing? How about now having to have multiple code paths and trees to support and maintain, and patch, and test all updates against (for literally thousands or tens of thousands of hardware, driver, and software combinations), and.... you get the point. Just because something can be done doesn't mean there's a reasonable amount of time or money in the project budget to do so. It doesn't make fiscal or time sense to spend that kind of effort on 1% of your user base, even if that base is millions. The lion's share will never touch it, it adds complexity and points for failure, and ultimately, someone will have to pay for it (hint, it will be the consumer, not Microsoft - those costs will get passed on) - there's no return on investment, it won't help sell more products, and it will make the difficult job of both building the product and maintaining it that much more complex and expensive. Where's the return on investment?

I'd prefer they just do a good job with what they have and what they're designing for release next, rather than making Windows modular in that extent.

 

[arkhi]

I mistakenly placed 16GB of memory in my laptop and I'm Dying for Windows to use all of it D:< Otherwise, I can't get any bigger than 10-12GB of usage even with heavy gamage <_<

 

[rraod]

I had a spare evening and tried to put something which was on my mind for some time. It does not mean that I am not for upgrading for new OS versions.

I was one of the first person in my office to tryout the new OS versions and really enjoy exploring the new features. Only in case of Windows 7, I explored it as soon as it is released but has not adopted till recently.

Anyway I enjoyed the discussions on this topic. I appreciate the time the members have taken in dissecting my post and explaining in detail. Thanks a lot!

 

[seavixen32]

It's an interesting topic and got the responses it warranted, so well done to you, rraod, for taking the time to start the discussion.

 

[cluberti]

+1 agreed.

 

[Corazon]

I never said Microsoft should allow you to "strip down the OS to nothing" :shock: and I have no problem with it using however much RAM it wants to use...that's what the RAM is there for. It's not about disabling Aero and things like that to gain a few fractions of a percent more performance either...I agree, that's just silly (and I LIKE the Aero look and other eyecandy btw).

I'm simply saying that all the OS components are way too interconnected and it should be easier to choose what you want and what you don't want. And this is strictly for power users who know the possible consequences and can fix a problem by re-adding a component they thought they didn't need. I just don't understand why MS has to make it harder for them while making things easy for the average consumer. That is all...

For example, why aren't there simple uninstall options for Windows DVD Maker or Windows Mail or Windows Defender (none of which I use)? And why must I keep copies of a ton of things I'll never use in the winsxs cache, for example all the games or the sample music and video clips? I appreciate the convenience of not having to insert the Windows install DVD everytime Windows needs something that isn't currently installed, but I would gladly have it ask for the DVD instead of being forced through MS' design to keep that huge winsxs folder on my harddisk if I could. They simply don't allow you to do that.
(I know of course that winsxs isn't a simple backup, but also MS' answer to DLL hell by managing multiple versions of specific DLLs. But it's ALSO being used as a complete database of all Windows features from all editions of Windows.)

What about the IME input methods for Korean and Japanese and what-not that I'll never need? Microsoft speech lexicons for British English when all I use is American English? All this is just unused dead weight, and dead weight bothers me by principle though I realize that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter that much.

I once removed all the printer and modem drivers from \Windows\system32\DriverStore since I'll never use them (but backed them up first) - and I figure that Windows will simply download any driver I need in the future online. Turns out I started having all kinds of problems that didn't even have anything to do with modems or printers. Only when I restored the backup things would be perfectly fine again. That doesn't make sense to me.


...I know this seems like a long rant, but it isn't really intended as such. I just tried to come up with as many examples as I could to make my point. Not trying to argue anything forcefully