Is Windows 7 less bloated than Vista?
By Michael Pietroforte | 14 Comments | Permalink | Trackback | Previous | NextCheck out all reviews and tips about Windows 7 on 4sysops.
It took me more than 10 hours download it last week from Technet. The ISO file has 2,497.48MB. When I saw how long the download would take it occurred to me that it might be interesting to compare the file sizes of the different Windows versions:
- Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3 (x86): 589.14MB
- Windows Vista with Service Pack 2 Beta (x86) (all editions): 3,096.52MB
- Windows 7 Beta (x86) (all editions): 2,497.48MB
- Windows 3.11: 5.47MB
- Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition: 593.66MB
- Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition: 787.94MB
- Windows Server 2008 Datacenter, Enterprise and Standard (x64): 2,542.27MB
- Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter, Enterprise and Standard Beta (x64): 2,850.01MB
The first thing you will notice is the that the ISO file for Vista SP2 is more than five times as big as the one for XP SP3. The reason for this huge difference could be that a Vista DVD contains all editions (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate). Thanks to single-instance storage, however, a WIM image doesn’t contain redundant files. I have never created an ISO file that contained only one Vista edition. If you have one on hand, please tell us the file size.
One thing is certain, though. Vista is a much bigger than XP. It is interesting to note that the current Windows 7 Beta is 500MB smaller than Vista, even though the former has quite a few new features. Note that the difference between Windows 7 and Windows Vista is equivalent to the whole size of Windows XP! This can mean only that Microsoft optimized the code. The fact that Windows 7 is much faster than Vista and XP is another hint. I guess that many think that the most important new feature of Windows 7 is that it is less “bloated” than previous versions.
But I am sure that many think that Windows 7 is still bloated compared to Windows XP. This might be true. If you compare Windows XP to Windows 3.11, however, you have to admit that XP is bloated, too. After all, XP is 100 times bigger! Yes, I know, more than nine years separate the release dates of Windows XP and 3.11, and only five years separate Vista and XP. But if you compare the factors (100 vs. 5), you have to admit that XP is really a bloated pig. Technet doesn’t offer Windows 95 for download. I would be interested in the size of its ISO image.
The file sizes of the server versions have developed comparably. What I find interesting is that Windows Server 2008 R2 is bigger than Windows Server 2008, although Windows 7 is smaller than Vista. This surprised me because Server 2008 R2 has fewer new features than Windows 7. Microsoft undoubtedly invested quite some time to optimize the Windows 7 code.
Anyway, in my opinion a bloated operating system is a good operating system. I know that such sentences evoke strong emotions among Vista haters. However, I believe that it is the nature of evolution to bloat things. Our genome is more bloated than those of bacteria, our libraries are more bloated than those in the middle age, and today’s PC operating systems are more bloated than those used in the first Mainframes. I love bloat!




Subscribe via e-mail: 




[...] Is Windows 7 less bloated than Vista? (4sysops) [...]
Bloated is ok with me if I am able to select what bloat to install…
I have an image of an original Windows 98 SE (danish):
The dirs add-ons, cdsample and tools: 344MB
Driver dir: 96MB
win98 dir: 111MB
around 550MB all in all.
Unfortunately I cannot find my Win95 right now.
Windows Vista Enterprise ISOs have only the single edition – x86 is 2.14 GB and x64 is 2.81 GB.
I don’t understand people’s obsession with “bloat”, it’s a very subjective concept really.
“This can mean only that Microsoft optimized the code”
*rolleyes*
Well, we all know that most of the Vista DVD are drivers. So of course, if the .ISO size of 7 is 500MB less, that this could of course only mean, that they optmized the code so much, that they reduced installation size by 2GB uncompressed.
With Windows 7 moving to ‘Live’ software, some of the removed MB could be the services that are now available for download that tie into the Live services.
[...] than Windows Vista SP2. What do you think makes the difference in size? See the original post at: 4sysops – Is Windows 7 less bloated than Vista? Tags: Beta, Vista Categories: WebLinks Views: 0 views Posted By: Joe Last Edit: 13 Jan [...]
I have a copy of Windows 95 (with USB support) that also include the “CD Sampler” so here’s the breakdown:
Whole CD – 598MB
win95 directory – 79.1MB
drivers folder – 47.7MB
funstuff folder – 150.1MB
sampler, help, other folders – 92.4MB
demos folder – 218.2MB
So f you got rid of all the bloat/fluff on the CD, Windows 95 alone is 79MB or so. Quite “bloated” compared to Win3.1, but I think it was worth the upgrade.
Interesting to see the breakdown!
Win95 OSR2’s ISO is about 82MB.
Aaron, thanks. Is this with or without SP2?
Christoph, the drivers certainly are a huge part. After all the main task of an OS is to manage hardware. Windows is really bloated because it supports so many different devices. That’s why I like Windows and dislike OS X. Vista SP2 and Windows 7 should have the same number of drivers. Of course, hardware vendors optimized their code too. I think the fact that Windows 7 is much faster Vista is a further hint that much of the code has been optimized.
Joe, I think programs such as Windows Mail don’t need that much space.
Nick, thanks for the info. Are these 598MB the size of the ISO file? You think the drivers are bloat too? I wonder how your Windows would boot-up without the drivers
Chrissy, thanks. This is what I guessed.
[...] 4Sysops Comparte esta entrada: [...]
I don’t have a problem with bloat per se, but the bloat has to deliver something I want. I don’t think vista got that right.
At first blush, my guess would be that Windows 7’s smaller footprint is the result of fewer bundled apps. Remember, Microsoft is no longer preloading Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, and all that other software.
It’s not bloat until it’s on my HD.
Code on the install disk/iso is just “spare parts” waiting to be installed. On the other hand, if they put it on my hd without asking me and I have no use for it, THAT is BLOAT. Like the 64 bit code in the recovery partition on my 32 be laptop.
I really like your suggestion that Windoze be modularized and we just install the parts we need. I know the only reason MS didn’t include Bitlocker and Applocker in the Business Pro Versions of Vista & 7 where they really are needed, is that they are trying to milk more money out of companies by forcing them to upgrade. Without those features to differentiate them, PRO and Enterprise are basically the same.
Jack, give it a try. I am sure after a few weeks you’ll wonder how you could stick with a boring OS like XP for such a long time.
Simplify, these bundled apps are one reason. But this doesn’t explain why Win7 works fine with 512MB.
Ron, in my view money milking is quite OK. My point is that Microsoft could milk more money if they sell OS apps separately.