yeah man. i'm usually pretty chill. i just have irrational hatred for that point of view.
To me, the complaint
"this software is bloated and uses more space than is necessary and/or efficient"
is not adequately addressed by the response:
"hard drives are cheap so just buy another one"
i could make a number of analogies/further points etc, but i won't bother unless you want me to, it's just a bad argument. i just can't not comment. it's like my weakness. I guess it's my standpoint that in general consumers shouldn't have to fold around to the whims of producers who don't really have their best interests in mind. that doesn't directly inform this issue, but is related.
that above example wasn't really in reference to this thread either. bringing it back on topic... i'm not surprised at all about the size of windows 7's size. if you want a light weight windows operating system go with xp because it can basically do everything the newer ones can and is faster and takes farrrr less space. you can even get versions online that are stripped of all the unnecessary stuff that clock in at under 200 megs.
I DO find it strange though that some
sites state windows 7 takes like 6 gigs if it really really doesn't. i did read it depends how much ram you have because it will create a pagefile of equivalent size, and a 'clean' install may be missing some options.