Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How much disk space does windows 7 take on your computer?

H

hankkosovo

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2009
48
0
Yeah, so how much disk space does windows 7 take on your computer.

I installed the 64bit ultimate version on a 2.66ghz unibody and it took 15gb! I doubt that's normal, or is it?
 
Stridder44

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
hankkosovo said:
Yeah, so how much disk space does windows 7 take on your computer.

I installed the 64bit ultimate version on a 2.66ghz unibody and it took 15gb! I doubt that's normal, or is it?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. For comparison, Leopard/Snow Leopard takes up about 12 GB. So it's not crazy to take up that amount of space. But honestly, hard drives are huge and cheap nowadays, 16 GB is table scraps.
 
C

cutcopypaste

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2008
171
16
Stridder44 said:
But honestly, hard drives are huge and cheap nowadays, 16 GB is table scraps.
Click to expand...

yeah especially if you have a laptop with limited usb ports.. nothing at all keeping you from spending $100 on an external hd. if you afforded a mac you obviously don't have practical expenses like food etc to worry about.

but seriously.
the next time is see someone using that tired old 'don't complain about how much unnecessary space something uses.. buy another harddrive' argument (if it can even be called an argument) i'm going to smack them.

but anyway.

i swear i read somewhere that windows 7 takes about 5 gigs to isntall when i was googling 'how much hd space does windows 7 take' or something to that effect. so i guess that was wrong.. glad to have that information before i set up my bootcamp lol.
 
Stridder44

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
cutcopypaste said:
yeah especially if you have a laptop with limited usb ports.. nothing at all keeping you from spending $100 on an external hd. if you afforded a mac you obviously don't have practical expenses like food etc to worry about.
Click to expand...


Yeah I know what you mean, because I do have a laptop with limited USB ports. But that's alright, we'll overlook that. :rolleyes:

Now explain to me why you'd buy an external hard drive for Windows when Boot Camp will only install on an internal drive. But what the heck, I'll play along, because you don't need to spend $100 on a hard drive. Here's a 320 GB 2.5" laptop drive for $76. Or a 500 GB 3.5" desktop drive for $63. Both Western Digital, both Caviar Black (their performance drives, meaning they're among the more expensive). No one's forcing you to buy them.

And where did I say anything about being able to afford a Mac and not having other expenses?

but seriously.
the next time is see someone using that tired old 'don't complain about how much unnecessary space something uses.. buy another harddrive' argument (if it can even be called an argument) i'm going to smack them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've asked this question before and gotten the same answer. Probably because the answer is true, that hard drives are dirt cheap and very spacious. But no, resort to petty threats. :rolleyes:

but anyway.

i swear i read somewhere that windows 7 takes about 5 gigs to isntall when i was googling 'how much hd space does windows 7 take' or something to that effect. so i guess that was wrong.. glad to have that information before i set up my bootcamp lol.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
C

cutcopypaste

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2008
171
16
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 somesites 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.
 
Stridder44

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
cutcopypaste said:
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 somesites 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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do agree on the whole misstating how much space it takes up, and have no idea why people say that. My only guess would be that they're using some kind of slimming app like Vlite (which is a terrible idea). Usually I just go into Control Panel and remove certain Windows components (for example, pen/tablet PC recognition apps/drivers are installed by default, which is dumb).
 
Infrared

Infrared

macrumors 68000
Mar 28, 2007
1,714
64
Stridder44 said:
Fair enough. I do agree on the whole misstating how much space it takes up, and have no idea why people say that. My only guess would be that they're using some kind of slimming app like Vlite (which is a terrible idea). Usually I just go into Control Panel and remove certain Windows components (for example, pen/tablet PC recognition apps/drivers are installed by default, which is dumb).
Click to expand...

I think it also depends on your swap space. People with different amounts
of memory will end up with paging files of a different size. There's also the
hibernation file, which again may vary in size according to the amount of
memory one has (I'm not sure about that, though). Here's what I have:

page.png

So that's 7GB right there. It is possible to manually tweak the paging file
so that it uses less space.

I think Leopard/Snow Leopard may avoid this by using delayed allocation.
There may be some tradeoffs with that, though.
 
C

cutcopypaste

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2008
171
16
now here's a question... does windows 7 on the mac report space the same way snow leopard does? because if so it's going to be more gb than on an equivalent pc. if not, the windows partition is going to report as being smaller from inside windows.
 
Stridder44

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
Infrared said:
I think it also depends on your swap space. People with different amounts
of memory will end up with paging files of a different size. There's also the
hibernation file, which again may vary in size according to the amount of
memory one has (I'm not sure about that, though). Here's what I have:

View attachment 197504

So that's 7GB right there. It is possible to manually tweak the paging file
so that it uses less space.

I think Leopard/Snow Leopard may avoid this by using delayed allocation.
There may be some tradeoffs with that, though.
Click to expand...

Very true, as the swap file will usually be as large as the amount of RAM you have. To anyone curious, I'd recommend not disabling it (but that is another debate for another thread someday :)).

cutcopypaste said:
now here's a question... does windows 7 on the mac report space the same way snow leopard does? because if so it's going to be more gb than on an equivalent pc. if not, the windows partition is going to report as being smaller from inside windows.
Click to expand...

It did, up until SL (Snow Leopard). SL started using base 10 (where all previous version of OS X use base 2; Windows also uses base 2). This is why it seems like you get so much space back when installing Snow Leopard. When I made a partition with Boot Camp for Windows, I set it for 70 GB. In base 2 (the way Windows read it), it came out to 75.9 GB.
 
C

cutcopypaste

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2008
171
16
Stridder44 said:
It did, up until SL (Snow Leopard). SL started using base 10 (where all previous version of OS X use base 2; Windows also uses base 2). This is why it seems like you get so much space back when installing Snow Leopard. When I made a partition with Boot Camp for Windows, I set it for 70 GB. In base 2 (the way Windows read it), it came out to 75.9 GB.
Click to expand...

Wait... brain problems.. if the drive in total is larger according to snow leopard, then shouldn't windows see the same partition as smaller not larger? are you saying you partitioned 70 gigs in SL and it's saying it's 75.9 in windows? that seems backward to me..
 
N

nph

macrumors 65816
Feb 9, 2005
1,045
214
Ok, maybe we are on to something here, it seems 32 bit version takes 10 Gig (including MS Office) so when some sites claim 6-7 Gig they refer to 32 bit version and if (like me) you install 64 bit version then we are talking closer to 15 Gig.

just a thought...
 
Stridder44

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,973
198
California
cutcopypaste said:
Wait... brain problems.. if the drive in total is larger according to snow leopard, then shouldn't windows see the same partition as smaller not larger? are you saying you partitioned 70 gigs in SL and it's saying it's 75.9 in windows? that seems backward to me..
Click to expand...

I don't know enough on the subject (of base 2 vs base 10) to give a thorough explanation, but I do know that many people have noticed a large gain when installing S.L. (and the base 10 thing is partly the reason behind it).

nph said:
Ok, maybe we are on to something here, it seems 32 bit version takes 10 Gig (including MS Office) so when some sites claim 6-7 Gig they refer to 32 bit version and if (like me) you install 64 bit version then we are talking closer to 15 Gig.

just a thought...
Click to expand...

Indeed, 64-bit does use a bit more space both in terms of hard drive and RAM, but claiming a 6 to 7 GB install still seems pretty far fetched.
 
FieryFurnace

FieryFurnace

macrumors 6502
Sep 19, 2008
359
0
Berlin, Germany
My Win7 Pro 32Bit is now at 15GB with updates installed and some programs.

If I turn off hibernation and delete system restore points and other stuff I guess it will be ~10GB.
 
B

brucewagner

macrumors newbie
Nov 10, 2008
4
0
New York
4.1GB = Ubuntu 10.04 Fully Installed WITH 153 extra apps I love

4.1GB = Ubuntu 10.04 Fully Installed WITH 153 extra apps I love

The antidote to:

- bloatware
- viruses
- big brother software extortion
- low budget (free!)
- low resources (requires 256MB RAM, but 384MB is recommended)
- 4.1GB hard disk (including the 153 extra apps I love most)

Ubuntu 10.04 ROCKS! It's easier to use than any version of Mac or Windows has ever been, and cheaper (free!) ....and 1,000 times better. Trust me, I've used them all... for about 33 years now I've been an IT pro. Your grandmother can use the new Ubuntu with NO instruction or help.

Bruce Wagner
http://bredtech.com
 
K

kmikze

macrumors newbie
May 27, 2010
1
0
brucewagner said:
4.1GB = Ubuntu 10.04 Fully Installed WITH 153 extra apps I love

The antidote to:

- bloatware
- viruses
- big brother software extortion
- low budget (free!)
- low resources (requires 256MB RAM, but 384MB is recommended)
- 4.1GB hard disk (including the 153 extra apps I love most)

Ubuntu 10.04 ROCKS! It's easier to use than any version of Mac or Windows has ever been, and cheaper (free!) ....and 1,000 times better. Trust me, I've used them all... for about 33 years now I've been an IT pro. Your grandmother can use the new Ubuntu with NO instruction or help.

Bruce Wagner
http://bredtech.com
Click to expand...

Yeah, right...

I want you to make a demonstration, and use the latest 3Ds Max, Photoshop, and directX games on your beloved ubuntu, with the same speed like in windows...
 
V

vistadude

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2010
1,423
1
If you install the professional version of windows 7, it turns on shadow copies by default, which is similar to time machine backups. This will make multiple backup copies of your data files, so this will also eat up a lot of space. You can turn off shadow copies in the system protection dialog.
 
Simmity

Simmity

macrumors member
May 9, 2010
30
1
brucewagner said:
4.1GB = Ubuntu 10.04 Fully Installed WITH 153 extra apps I love

The antidote to:

- bloatware
- viruses
- big brother software extortion
- low budget (free!)
- low resources (requires 256MB RAM, but 384MB is recommended)
- 4.1GB hard disk (including the 153 extra apps I love most)

Ubuntu 10.04 ROCKS! It's easier to use than any version of Mac or Windows has ever been, and cheaper (free!) ....and 1,000 times better. Trust me, I've used them all... for about 33 years now I've been an IT pro. Your grandmother can use the new Ubuntu with NO instruction or help.

Bruce Wagner
http://bredtech.com
Click to expand...

Well, this topic is about using windows on a mac. Why would you install linux on a mac if you have OSX ?
 
B

brianhoorn

macrumors newbie
Dec 4, 2010
4
0
You are SO wrong...

kmikze said:
Yeah, right...

I want you to make a demonstration, and use the latest 3Ds Max, Photoshop, and directX games on your beloved ubuntu, with the same speed like in windows...
Click to expand...

Actually, I honestly prefer Linux to anything myself. I'm sure you've never used it, so that's why you're being ignorant. He is right about Ubuntu using little resources. It's definitely faster than Windows. I laughed when I read "with the same speed like in Windows". Linux is the fastest OS I've ever used. The only thing that made me switch to Mac is the applications. There are a lot of good programs for Linux, but if you want GREAT programs, you need Mac or Windows. If they release Adobe CS for Linux, I might switch back. But I already spent tons of money on my Mac, so idk.
 
M

Med101

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2012
1
0
Disk Space

I hope someone can give me some advice. I am not at all cleued up with pc's and need some help. I don't have a big machine (2GB memory; 80GB HD etc.)

I just formatted my HD and changed to Windows 7. The only software on the PC is Windows 7 and an Anti Virus Program and my 80GB HD is FULL. Any advice?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom