@fishy_fis

I do not know the size of Win 10 but at least Win 7 fitted on one DVD, of course much more than AmigaOS on one CD but comparing both is like comparing apple and pies.

@g01df1sh

Quote:

Yes I know that. But when they do it and then do the restart they will be out of action until Windows has updated. From the first reboot is any where from 30mins to 1Hr depending on machine.

That's the point. The restart can be deferred, so schedule it for when you're not there. When you come back it's done (a couple of minutes extra to log in, that's all).

I restarted my work PC before lunch, when I came back it was done.

Windows updates aren't perfect, but they aren't that bad either.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

@g01df1sh

Quote:

g01df1sh wrote: @Daedalus I get the bit about textures and hi def audio but still 40GB to over 100GB for one game. Surely they could be written a lot more efficient.

Come on. How much of the 100GB do you really think is code? Do you not realise how massive game assets can be? One single uncompressed photo from my camera is around 48MB for example. Now, consider it might take 10 of them to texture the walls of a single room. Now multiply that by 100 unique rooms (not counting multiple repeats of the same rooms) and you've got close to 50GB. That's before you start texturing vehicles, people, the outside world, or including FMV, music or sound effects. rough estimates but you get the idea.

Sure, they can compress it all down to a fraction of that size, but do you really want a delay when new areas or objects appear while you decrunch hundreds of MB of files? Thankfully these days we don't have to make such compromises. And they can reduce the quality as well - I mean, nobody wants anything more than Quake 3 quality graphics on their 4K display, right?

As for Windows, actually it does partially use 3D for its desktop. All those fancy fading menus, windows and so on? All rendered by GPU. And that means you need massive frameworks already in place to get such massive and complex cards up and running. Then you need the basic drivers for dozens of different chipsets so that it can boot well enough to get online to get other drivers. Then you've god the fallback desktop API, just in case your graphics card isn't support, so that you can still use it in the old 2D mode. And then you need all the other frameworks that do a similar job for hundreds of different chipsets for the other functions - northbridge, southbridge, audio, network, printing, temperature control, PCI, ISA, all sorts of bridges, USB1, USB2, USB3, Thunderbold, Firewire, SATA, IDE, SAS, RAID, all these things. And then you need to duplicate all these things inside a sort of virtual machine to retain compatibility with 32-bit Windows applications, so that will double up on most of that bulk.

It's easy to say it's too big (and it is), but if you start taking away chunks of it, you suddenly start losing functionality that you or someone else might take for granted.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@fishy_fis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions

How accurate this info is debatable

_________________
A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr
Elbox empty Power Tower
RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC
Wii with Amiga emulation
Vampire v4 SA

@Daedalus

What fancy fading menus? Windows 10 looks about as flat as a road killed hedgehog lol. So much so it reminds me of windows 3.1

Last edited by g01df1sh on 24-Oct-2017 at 01:53 PM.

_________________
A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr
Elbox empty Power Tower
RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC
Wii with Amiga emulation
Vampire v4 SA

@g01df1sh

You know how they appear and disappear without visible flicker, popup or other artifacts? The way they slide in and out (mostly) very smoothly, without disturbing other items on screen? The way it's far more responsive and less "corrupty" than all the 2D-rendered Windows interfaces (all of them up to and including XP)? That.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Daedalus

Windows 10 lost me at the mess of a Start bar with added 'Windows Phone' tiles etc. It's not fit for purpose especially in a business environment! Now Windows Phone is dead there's even less point having those tiles in the Start bar. Windows 7 is a far cleaner design IMHO. And yes I know you can remove the tile one by one but why are they there? The File menu of most MS Office apps has become a cumbersome confusing mess too!

WHAT A WASTE OF SPACE.DOCX


I can't really pay much attention to how smooth the menus are when the aesthetics are awful!

Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 02:51 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 02:50 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 02:48 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

I'm not in any way defending the UI design of Windows 10, and after using it in work, it's refreshing to use 7 at home. Of course, it's more refreshing again to use Amiga OS and Linux... But I can see to a certain extent where the large size comes from: massive, diverse support for a huge variety of hardware, and 20+ years of legacy baggage that was big enough to start with. Coupled with the fact that it's a continuously changing system, so updates are more like a new installation that replacing a few old files, and there's also extra stuff like the Linux subsystem, it's not really that crazy to be the size it is.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

How about AmigaOS: how bloated did it get?

- AmigaOS 3.1 requires 512kb RAM (that's what's needed to run the full workbench desktop, only 256kb is needed to start the OS)
- AmigaOS 4.0 required, as I heard it, something like 30Mb RAM

That's 60x more RAM needed to run AmigaOS 3.1, and that's for sure without composite mode activated,... oh, and the 512Kb RAM accounts for both system memory and graphics memory: to run OS4 you of course need some Megabytes of graphics memory in addition.

Do you call OS4 bloated software? Because I think you could...

This is just called evolution: OS require way more disk space, ram, cpu, but also do a lot more, way more. Screen size/depth is also a lot bigger: most icons found in OSX are bigger than the standard resolution of the original Amiga!

The Amiga follows the same rules, it's just one-two generations behind others.

Last edited by Leo on 24-Oct-2017 at 07:10 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 24-Oct-2017 at 07:10 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 24-Oct-2017 at 07:04 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 24-Oct-2017 at 07:02 PM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

Quote:

most icons found in OSX are bigger than the standard resolution of the original Amiga!

Funny you should use that metaphor! I've just reverted OSX's icons and aesthetics to the Maverick era set in El Capitan. I'm back to a nice '3D style' desktop rather than the Hanna-Barbera style flat desktop (awful) that the hipsters at Apple thinks look great Some progress just isn't progress at all!!!

XRevert and XtraFinder come highly recommended to put right what once went wrong (post-Jobs that's every year now). If your going to have high resolution icons Apple, pick some nice ones or easily allow users to change them

I also got my colour sidebar in Finder back May be the black and white colour scheme is a hark back to a time when Jobs didn't think the original Mac needed to be in colour

Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 09:07 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD
If the absence of the start bar from Windoze 8 onwards really gets up your nose, you could always try
Classic Shell It is a free bolt on that gets things back to what you are used to.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Leo Quote: most icons found in OSX are bigger than the standard resolution of the original Amiga! Funny you should use that metaphor! I've just reverted OSX's icons and aesthetics to the Maverick era set in El Capitan. I'm back to a nice '3D style' desktop rather than the Hanna-Barbera style flat desktop (awful) that the hipsters at Apple thinks look great Some progress just isn't progress at all!!!

Not trying to be defend anyone here, but the "hipsters" at Apple have the daunting task to make as many people happy as they possibly can. The user base ranges from 12 to 90 years old people. And the ones paying most, alas buying the product are the ones that like that kind of design. Look back a few years, before the change to the new style, you can find a plethora of youtube videos with people bashing apple for the old and heavy looking icons and GUI design. Now there are people unhappy with this new look. You know, you can please some people, some of the time..
If you don't like the icons you can find a lot of icons sets out there, and changing single icons is as easy as it is on AmigaOS using RAWBinfo. Heck even more, you could take a picture of yourself with incorporated camera, copy that image or a part of it from "Preview" and paste it as an icon on the "info" window of an icon. The OS takes care of scaling to the max size and displays it as the standard size defined (usually 64x64). Isn't that at least..acceptable and say easy?
Quote:

XRevert and XtraFinder come highly recommended to put right what once went wrong (post-Jobs that's every year now). If your going to have high resolution icons Apple, pick some nice ones or easily allow users to change them

yes, yes, changing them is almost as with RAWBInfo on AmigaOS: open the "info" window of an icon in Finder, go to the top left icon, select it, copy it using your preferred method and paste it the same way to the top left square in to another file's info window. You can also drag&drop, awesome. Careful though, the big Icon on the bottom of the Info window acts as a Finder object, so you end up moving a file to a Draw..sorry Folder when dragging it on top of it.
Stupid Apple hipsters, they copied the Amiga way.
Quote:

I also got my colour sidebar in Finder back May be the black and white colour scheme is a hark back to a time when Jobs didn't think the original Mac needed to be in colour

Not really, they are some precise reasons behind that decision. One of them being they didn't want it too look too cartoonish.. go figure!

@Amigo1

Quote:

Not really, they are some precise reasons behind that decision. One of them being they didn't want it too look too cartoonish.. go figure!

Well from experience it makes it a lot harder to spot the user specific pictures, documents, movies folders etc from different shared folders with the same names. The user specific (i.e. default) icons are nice coloured pictures in Mavericks and older iteration of OSX whereas the created 'shared' sidebar folders would just be blue folders. If everything is grey it takes probably twice as long to work out what you are looking at. I've heard that Apple wanted users to focus on the data rather than the folders but that was just rubbish. They pay Jonathan Ive too much to shave mm of aluminium off future iteration of hardware and allow him to screw up the UI in a ritual resembling a yearly fashion show when it was fine to begin with in Snow Leopard through to Mavericks.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Amigo1

Quote:

Look back a few years, before the change to the new style, you can find a plethora of youtube videos with people bashing apple for the old and heavy looking icons and GUI design.

They wanted to ape the design of the app buttons and aesthetics in iOS on OS X. There is nothing more to it than that. It doesn't mean that it suits a computer or looks particularly professional. A kids toy aesthetic springs to mind

The REAL problem is Apple beginning to lock down OSX to the same degree as iOS. It is eliminating ALL user customisation options and demanding that EVERYTHING should look and work in the way OUR OVERLORDS envisioned. This is not acceptable and my next laptop is very unlikely to be an Apple machine for this reason

I get it, I'm not their target market and I never was. I ACTUALLY 'Think Different' and customise Apple hardware to suit MY needs! I have installed my own Blu-Ray internal drive which I use frequently for DVD ISO backups on Blu-Ray, playing Blu-Ray films and burning home video DVDs. I have now 'hacked' the aesthetics of the OS to resemble Mavericks and prefer the FireFox browser to Safari. I use GutenPrint to use an old HP printer (that also works with my Amiga as it has USB and Centronics ports). I run Elite Dangerous on my Windows 7 Bootcamp partition because Apple REFUSES to update OpenGL and it's not cost effective for MOST game companies to use the Metal API (hence no option to upgrade to ED: Horizons should I want to due to as there's no shader support in Mac supported OpenGL).

Once Apple forcefully stop the latest version of their OS from running 32-bit apps it's a NO-GO as I consider the iMovie and iDVD combination Apple's 'killer apps' which they will have managed to kill when iDVD is finally totally unusable (it's a 32-bit app that Apple has no intention of updating).

THIS sums it up really regarding locking down the system and THIS shows their timeline for phasing out 32-bit apps

Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 10:52 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 24-Oct-2017 at 10:42 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

Well, I wasn't saying I like (or not) Apple's icons. I was just trying to explain why most of the things take space, a lot more than previous OS. And yes, it's quite easy to change icons in OSX too but this has nothing to do with the subject :)

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

Quote:

Well, I wasn't saying I like (or not) Apple's icons. I was just trying to explain why most of the things take space, a lot more than previous OS. And yes, it's quite easy to change icons in OSX too but this has nothing to do with the subject :)

Yes it does, as your example demonstrates that progress either equals bloat (Windows) or a reduction in features every decade or so with a smoke screen of UI reinvention and/or shiny new (read: thinner and/or lighter) hardware (MacOS).

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

Quote:

Daedalus wrote: I'm not in any way defending the UI design of Windows 10, and after using it in work, it's refreshing to use 7 at home. Of course, it's more refreshing again to use Amiga OS and Linux...

The new fashion for flat GUI design is absolute horrible.

Often you don't know where to press a button because it doesn't look like a button any more.

@OlafS25

I just made a back up of my Win7 OS and needed three DvDs. HP allow me to make one back up and cus the hard drive fell over a few months ago the system let me do it again and like I say I needed three DvDs.

Bloat is subjective in truth. Just gets bigger with the faster speeds, larger displays and more content. The quality of video, graphics and images these days are way and beyond above anything of old. The light in Archeage passes through the glass and can change the quality of textures as you move the camera around instantly. Add to that the animation of all those textures and the live content of players online, you just need the content to feed the system.

When I look at wallpapers from my Win95 machine they are like a matchbox image on this big flat screen monitor. Online games are big, really big and you expect them to be. The rich volume just makes for way more fun and depth of game.

So it really is all relative in truth. I don't mind the volume as long as the content is rewarding. The flow is very much in your control.

I do have a Windows 10 machine but don't use it. More like a glorified mobile phone. I had a blow out with Win7 which turned out to be the Nvidia in the end. What it brought home was that probably one day I will lose Win7 and that seriously will be a very sad day. I just cannot use Win10.. its a pig. I hate Macs even more and I struggle with Linux. It isn't about the bloat, its about the trivial way it reduces computing to a phone app that I hate. The difference between 7 and 10 is just so large. I used 10 for like a week before I just had to get 7 working again.

I switch the 10 on once a month just to let it update... then switch it off.

@scuzz,

Google something like "can I make windows10 look like windows7" You should get a hit or two.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Amigo1 Quote: Not really, they are some precise reasons behind that decision. One of them being they didn't want it too look too cartoonish.. go figure! Well from experience it makes it a lot harder to spot the user specific pictures, documents, movies folders etc from different shared folders with the same names. The user specific (i.e. default) icons are nice coloured pictures in Mavericks and older iteration of OSX whereas the created 'shared' sidebar folders would just be blue folders. If everything is grey it takes probably twice as long to work out what you are looking at. I've heard that Apple wanted users to focus on the data rather than the folders but that was just rubbish. They pay Jonathan Ive too much to shave mm of aluminium off future iteration of hardware and allow him to screw up the UI in a ritual resembling a yearly fashion show when it was fine to begin with in Snow Leopard through to Mavericks.

I don't know how to argue about this, because at the end it a matter of taste and most likely also everything else which is going on behind the scenes and involves justificating his job position.