Longhorn/Whistler minimum hard drive space requirement
I don’t remember where I came across this, an announcement of a hard drive offering 1 terabyte capacity for the price of $1,199.00 USD. Expected shipping date is February 2004.
For those of you not up on the numbers, a terabyte is 1,099,511,627,776 bytes, or 1024 gigabytes.
A megabyte = 1,024 kilobytes. 1,024 megabytes = one gigabyte.
To give a little historical context: when I was in college (1991-1995) student accounts were allocated 4 megabytes of space, which is roughly the equivalent to the full text of the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments).
When I entered seminary (1995), a nice man by the name of Carl Edman gave me a computer which had a mind-blowing (at that time) 1 gigabyte hard drive, which was in a large external enclosure. I remember trying to guess how much the drive would have cost, and found that it was around $1,000 USD.
When I bought this laptop (2000) it came with an 11 gigabyte hard drive, which was later upgraded to a 30 gigabyte drive, for which I paid around $200, I believe.
In June 2003 I bought an iPod which has a 30 gigabyte capacity and fits easily in the palm of my hand, not much larger than my cell phone (a Treo 600, which has more RAM than the average computer had at my college). There is now a 40 gigabyte iPod which is about the same size.
What could anyone possibly need 1 terabyte of space for? Well, at the moment, few will. Then again, few needed 10 gigabytes 10 years ago, and few could have afforded it if they needed it.
I use a significant amount of diskspace for storing computer CDs such as Microsoft Office, which has an annoying tendency to ask me to put the installation disk in whenever I try to access a feature which I hadn’t used before (filters, clip art, etc). So I just copy the entire CD to c:\cd\office\ and install if from there.
Then there are the MP3s. I have a 60 gigabyte external drive where I keep my MP3s, along with a bunch of old files that I really ought to sort through, but really there is very little motivation to clean it out when the time it would take to make sure I don’t delete anything I might need later greatly outweighs the cost of getting a bigger hard drive.
This made me wonder how much space will be required by the next version of Windows (Whistler, scheduled for release in 2007).
I was talking with my friend Tam Ho about Windows diskspace requirements. He wrote that his Windows directory is already at 1.15 gigabytes after 7 days use. (Mine is at 2.5 gigabytes, less than a month after a clean install.)
Windows XP officially requires 1.5 gigabytes of space. Windows 3.1 (circa 1988) required 30 megabytes. Tam wrote:
If we assume that the space requirement of the OS doubles roughly every 3 years, that seems to fit the data. XP came out in 2002... the next version is coming out in '07... that means the next version’s space requirement will be about (1.5gigabytes)x[2^(5/3)] or 4.77 gigabytes.
You heard it here first.... but actually XP was released in 2001, so it’ll probably be closer to 6 gigabytes. I'm going to say 5.5 gigabytes, final answer, and I'm confident it'll be within 10% of that number.
So the game is on. I’m less optimistic than Tam, I think it will be closer to 7, and 10 will be the reality after a little time of actually using the system. The official requirement may be 5.5 gigabytes, but when has Microsoft’s “official” requirement ever been really usable?
Update (2004/02/20) C|Net asks: Is your PC ready for Longhorn?
Comments
Highly customized WindowsXP (all fluff hacked out using XPLite and my own tricks): My Windows folder is currently 2.25 GB (2'418'709'456 bytes), after two months of use since the last clean reinstall, with regular cleaning.
I know from experience that unless I take good care of DLL hell, it will be up to almost 3.5 gigs after I've installed Office and some other work programs. That means about 250% of the official 'minimum', which is in actuality the lowest of all Windows versions I tried yet. (I skipped 2k, but my 9x usually was at least four times as large after a half year of usage).
I suspect that were I to still be using Windows in the next version, it'd be a minimum of 3 gigs after install, and as much as 6 to 10 gigs after half a year of use.
Posted by: Jor | January 17, 2004 08:33 PM
Is there anyway to keep WindowsXP ,all utility
and no extras whatsoever , so only the bare essential that one needs runs and the rest of the
hard-to-understand-much-less-useful things get easily cut out /edited out/deleted so that the win directory can be kept to a minimum? Just wondering,...a sort of a custom optimizaton tool.
-J
Posted by: J | January 22, 2004 02:51 AM
win 2k with a chunk of office2k installed. Up and running for two years w/o a format.
Over 100 programs installed .
Windows folder = 900mb
root drive = 1.1g
Posted by: nightfishing | January 24, 2004 10:32 PM
[spam post from gregory_a@kukuku.com at IP 62.219.59.122 deleted and information submitted to MT Blacklist]
Posted by: spam message deleted | February 20, 2004 07:02 PM
Isn't "Whistler" the codename for Windows XP? Seeing it and "Longhorn" interchanged here is confusing.
Posted by: Chris E | February 21, 2004 07:33 AM
Yeah Chris I think you're right. We were talking about Longhorn originally, speculating on what its size would be.
Posted by: TjL | February 21, 2004 12:20 PM
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1083874709.html
speculation on AVERAGE (not minimum) system required by longhorn:
* 4-6 GHz dual-core CPU
* 2 GB RAM
* possibly 1 TB (1,000 GB) HD
* graphics processor 3x as fast as those available today
this is ludicrous. they're planning to release it in '06. i don't see this system even being AVAILABLE in '05. this means that in order to run longhorn when it's released, you would have to buy a system with the latest (i.e. most expensive) components available.
this is unheard of. for example, i got my current laptop in 1999, a celeron 466, and win2k and winxp both work fine on it. never before has a new OS required the absolute latest and greatest hardware.
granted, these are "average" specs, not minimum specs, but even so, since when is the latest and greatest considered "average?" and for all intents and purposes, "average" is usually MS-speak for minimum anyway because you know the OS will be dog slow on the "minimum" system that MS specifies.
if this is really how much power MS's next OS will suck, i suspect i won't be running it for a good 18-24 months after its release... probably longer, because i use a laptop and laptop performance lags behind the desktop somewhat.
Posted by: Tam Ho | May 6, 2004 05:50 PM
Did I mention that I have left Windows for the Mac world ;-?
Whatever the hardware requirements will be, it won't effect me in the least. Still, it will be interesting to watch.
Posted by: TjL | May 6, 2004 05:58 PM
Oh, I should point out this article http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2004/05/04.html#a7376 which talks about the fact that it will run on much less than what is being speculated.
Posted by: TjL | May 6, 2004 06:03 PM