Not really, MS cut DVD video support to save on codec royalties, a lot of stuff is not made "in house" at MS. At the time of Win95, MS had cut off parts of Norton SW just to save on it. Later on they bought it out but did not implement much of it. There are other things like that, Skype for one, it was bought by MS, lock stock and barrel.
Because I have both W7 & W8.1 installed on separate disks and use them both, but mainly W8 after it came out.Off topicIt's not actual disk space I'm talking about. I have plenty of that. It's the bloat that is incorporated into the Windows OS. There are features, like AERO, One Drive, etc. that I don't want. I like a lean OS that will run lightening quick on my SSD and that I can create system images in just a few seconds. I built a PC with hardware that is designed to be fast, which is why I like W8.1 over W7. W7 is a step slower in performance than W8.1 in just about every aspect. However I realize I'm probably not going to get what I want.
LittleJay, you peeked my curiosity
You said you built a computer to be fast. How do know 8.1 is faster over 7?
Great minds work alike, I would too like to see "empty" windows, just a lean system that works, NT series was a pretty good example, business like but with potential. A lots of us are quite capable to decide and find apps and applets on our own, the way they suit us. Most of the time I replaced windows applets with something I like better, most of them were free too.
You guys should look at Linux. There are about 200 different OS built on a common kernel - what a mess.
What bloat??? The parts you are talking about would probably so negligible in size as they wouldn't even register on most disc managements unless you set them to show you the counts in kilobytes.
To be blunt, so many of you seem to be stuck in Windows 3.1/95 think, when disc space was at a premium and a few extra kbs would make a difference in space and speed. It just doesn't anymore and removing inconsequential stuff isn't going to improve a darn thing anymore.
LittleJay, you did talk about the price in your posts: "MS should just offer a plain jane, vanilla OS at a lower price and then offer additions like AERO, etc. to those who want to purchase them for a nominal cost."
You mean the time windows fit on few diskettes or less than one CD ? or the time Atari TOS fit on one diskette ? DOS on two ?What bloat??? The parts you are talking about would probably so negligible in size as they wouldn't even register on most disc managements unless you set them to show you the counts in kilobytes.
To be blunt, so many of you seem to be stuck in Windows 3.1/95 think, when disc space was at a premium and a few extra kbs would make a difference in space and speed. It just doesn't anymore and removing inconsequential stuff isn't going to improve a darn thing anymore.
Why is it that some think they need to bring Linux into discussions on this site. I am sorry but Linux is in all reality a dead OS to those other then Linux Geeks. Windows and OSX users are just not going to make the jump. . .
Whenever I post a comment suggesting that Windows needs an advanced OS installer, people howl in outrage.
For comparison purposes.
If you only compare your performance to yourself, you don't get a real idea of what is actually happening elsewhere (i.e you don't know what you are missing out on).
The fact that a "dead OS" (your words) has superior features to Windows says a lot.
For example:
- Some Linux Distros have an advanced OS installer (CentOS, Fedora, OpenSUSE, etc.)
- They have had virtual desktops for years
- It uses significantly less RAM
- Some programs (like Firefox) run significantly better on Linux
- It is a fraction of the size despite coming with many programs by default (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc.)
Quote
