Everything you see fits on a 40Mb hard drive

Attached: lciii.jpg (3264x2448, 1.9M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jph0gxzL3UI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth's_law
slitaz.org/en/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

And it shows

fpbp

Ya and back then a 40mb hdd cost over $500, and a mac os 7 install took up about half of that. Quit being retarded. The price/gb is exponentially lower and the amount of space operating systems took up is exponentially lower. I bet you want to go back to using 15 floppies just to install your shitty 1991 OS too?

Fake news will still work on 40mb, the Jews are desperate for viewers

>the amount of space operating systems take up relative to the size of the drive is exponentially lower
is what I meant

>literally gay logo

you miss the point entirely

Attached: 1524093929613.png (645x729, 50K)

>being a macfag
>reading fake news
What an uncultured swine. My SGI Octane MIPS workstation could shit down your throat while running circles around your inferior fruity toy.

>b-b-but muh fagOS!
Amiga machines running a virtualized version of MacOS are like 4x faster. More proof that Apple toys were never good.

youtube.com/watch?v=Jph0gxzL3UI

This is the same logic that leads to web browsers taking up 8 GB of memory.

An OS should never use more than a couple of gigs maximum.

Kid pix lmao

And what point is that exactly? That a current OS X High Sierra install is like 8gb or something (Im not a macfag, but I think its around that) and 128ssd's can be bought for

Thats cool and I've seen this video before, but again you miss the point. This isn't about fake news or using Mac, its about how much we could do and the types of common applications that could be used on minimal hardware. Its about highlighting the amount of bloat that gets put in today's software.

>intel knew about spectre all the way back to the Apple II

WOW

You didn’t actually present any point dickhead

An 8BG OS is inexcusable. I don't care that its less on a 128GB drive in proportion to the 40MB hard drive you're trying to argue. I'm using a 800MB hard drive, which was more common at the time of this Macs debut. I'm just pointing out how much actual space it takes up and that a 40MB drive could also do it.

The point is, we had enterprise grade software like word/excel and browsers, and full fledged OS's that fit on an infinitesimally small amount of space. Imagine if we kept that mantra? Software would be extremely fast on our modern machines. Instead we chose to write extremely bloated software. 100MB hello world applications. It is disgusting. Linux is an improvement of course, but most normie machines run bloatware.

>You didn’t actually present any point dickhead
It should be self explanatory but apparently everyone on this board was born after 2000.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth's_law

>It should be self explanatory
This isn’t a valid point

Try again

The point has already been explained two times in this thread for you drooling idiots.

Current software on current hardware runs much quicker than it did on machines 25 years ago. I dunno if you're rose tinted glasses are blocking your view, but computers were comparatively slow as fuck. My computer right now boots in

>Current software on current hardware runs much quicker than it did on machines 25 years ago. I dunno if you're rose tinted glasses are blocking your view, but computers were comparatively slow as fuck. My computer right now boots in

MACTODDLERS BTFO

Look, retard. The reason why classic MacOS and others were so small is that they were tailored to very specific hardware and used only a small set of drivers. The GUI was incredibly basic with a bare bones window management system and file browser, and maybe a wallpaper. More features always means a larger codebase. With a modern operating system like Linux with all of the GNU compilers and utilities and shells and a window manager and apps, it's not unreasonable for it to take up a GB or two or three.

I'm all for going back to a simple OS and online network for hobbyists if that's what you're suggesting. Just stop acting surprised that modern complex software takes up more space. Why don't you write a simple bootloader and kernel in C, then add a file system and some simple device drivers for a Raspberry Pi? Then build a graphical shell and file manager like Finder to run on top of that. Then you add your own apps on top. If a schizophrenic homeless guy did it, so can you.

Attached: 1531765080803.jpg (409x618, 58K)

Well what point are you trying to make exactly? Software runs faster, uses up less space on our drives %-wise and storage is way cheaper by any metric even when adjusted for inflation. This just seems like luddites failing at logic

You just follow every thread regarding Apple to post gay shit?

Why did you quote me? I was the one calling him a tard throughout the whole thread

>Look, retard. The reason why classic MacOS and others were so small is that they were tailored to very specific hardware and used only a small set of drivers. The GUI was incredibly basic with a bare bones window management system and file browser, and maybe a wallpaper. More features always means a larger codebase. With a modern operating system like Linux with all of the GNU compilers and utilities and shells and a window manager and apps, it's not unreasonable for it to take up a GB or two or three.

It is entirely unreasonable. You are simply normalized to the dystopian reality we not inhabit.

Attached: 1500946819551.jpg (800x600, 55K)

>Software runs faster, uses up less space on our drives %-wise and storage is way cheaper by any metric even when adjusted for inflation.

Its not that software runs faster, its that machines are faster. But software could run MUCH faster, your machine could feel like it was from 10 years in the future if we didn't have all the bloat. For example, MS Word 5.1 takes up 7.4MB and Excel takes up 1.8MB. The functionality of both of these applications is as good for 95% of your needs. If you could run that on your PC, it would feel instantaneous. There would be no such thing as "load times" for anything. Same for websites. Everything would be instant, except for games of course as they have massive texture requirements.

>kid pix

Attached: 1508481488429.jpg (933x610, 49K)

>With a modern operating system like Linux with all of the GNU compilers and utilities and shells and a window manager and apps, it's not unreasonable for it to take up a GB or two or three.
The only thing in that list which would cause the size to go over 1 GB is third party applications. There's absolutely no excuse for an OS to be larger than 1GB out of the box. Even 1 GB is being generous.

a huge problem is that compilers like to optimize programs as much as they can, which can include, say, removing a loop entirely and copying it over for every iteration since it won't need to do a comparison or a jump
the windows bootloader for EFI systems (as in bootx64.efi) is 1mb by itself

>Software runs faster
it actually doesn't

That looks so comfy

NetBSD is about that light but is actually a modern operating system with SMP, NVMe, TRIM, and all sorts of other acronyms you've come to expect with modern systems.

Attached: NetBSD requirements.png (1383x714, 81K)

Attached: tinycore_firefox.png (1024x768, 302K)

Exactly, Windows 10 is 20 times larger for the base install than Windows 2000 but what have they added to merit such an increase?

Word and other office software already opens up in

This was an awesome paint like application back in teh day I used to play with in school. I didn't notice the double meaning.

So why is this not the official OS of Jow Forums?

Attached: 1526684531155.jpg (700x693, 135K)

>no drivers

>Word and other office software already opens up in

inb4 muh drivers

Yeah no I remember it too, but it's pretty funny now.

Which is nonsense. The first thing you do on a fresh Windows install is get your machine specific drivers. This hasn't changed in the last 23 years. Windows isn't using 10 GB of space on drivers.

Web browsing aside, if modern hardware can pick up the slack of poorly optimized programs, they should be run instantaneously without lag. The fact that there are lags show that the software is not optimized for performance. For example, if you edit a very large document with a modern word processor, you'll experience noticeable lag.

is it even maintained anymore?

>if you edit a very large document with a modern word processor, you'll experience noticeable lag.
That's funny because I just made a 6000 page word document filled with random letters and experienced absolutely no lag. What do you define as "large"?

Octanes were fucking terrible.

>The reason why classic MacOS and others were so small is that they were tailored to very specific hardware and used only a small set of drivers.
Same can be said of Mac OS today and yet the size of modern Mac OS is over 200 times larger than old Mac OS.

Not the guy you're replying to but if word 5.1 which is 7MB could take care of 95% of your needs for word processing, what then is necessary for another 2-3GB of hard disk space to give you the other 5% that Word 2016 has to offer you? I'd much rather my SSD didn't have all those GBs dedicated to a word processor.

online help facilities, smooth fonts/images and built-in functionality for niche use cases along with other things all add up over time and are generally considered to be acceptable considering that average file size hasn't really changed while storage capacity continues to expand almost exponentially

>online help facilities
kek

>smooth fonts/images
anti aliasing is simply an algorithm, its not something that would take up hundreds of megs of space, you sound like you're just talking out your ass now

> built-in functionality for niche use cases
a fancy way of saying bloat

way to miss the point dumbasses

why is OP wrong for showing appreciation for a simpler time?

>somehow this thread got a bunch of g/ents defending bloatware

wtf am I in the twilight zone or what

Attached: 1516329768395.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

you sound like you really just have never actually worked on a large project and barely understand how computationally expensive or complex some mundane things we take for granted today really are
are we supposed to defend whiny idiots who know nothing other than "moore's law is magic" instead?

He's not wrong because he appreciates something old, he's wrong because the point he's trying to make with it is rose-tinted bullshit.

>you sound like you really just have never actually worked on a large project and barely understand how computationally expensive or complex some mundane things we take for granted today really are
I do actually. Those large projects (which I am on) are comprised of software engineers who are never ever satisfied with their implementations and are constantly drumming up amazing new bullshit implementations designed to keep themselves needlessly employed. Oh I am all to familiar and understanding of the origins of software bloat. It is ultimately about bureaucracy. We pay for it one way or another.

they saw macOS and immediately sperged the fuck out

newfags, amirite?

>that intentionally vague wall of text
what a crock of shit, fuck off

>spectre
wow, there's even room for exploits

Not going to dox myself you silly invertebrate.

>he's wrong because the point he's trying to make with it is rose-tinted bullshit.
you're projecting really really hard, it's actually embarrassing

all he did was post an image and in the subject he had "all you see fits on a 40mb drive". yeah, we've come a long way in terms of ram, cpus, browsers, and HDD space, and OP managed to read a new article on an old OS. i'm pretty sure you took it the wrong way kid

>you sound like you really just have never actually worked on a large project and barely understand how computationally expensive or complex some mundane things we take for granted today really are
Would you say the Linux kernel is a large project? How large is the Linux kernel?

Read the rest of the thread, dipshit.

you read it first

A lot of people are too comfortable with whatever they're using now, whether it's the OS they grew up on, or one they switched to in the last few years. If you start using it and write some guides or review it and say how comfy it is, I could see you starting a movement of people on Jow Forums switching to it. I'm not very knowledgeable on BSD, but I think openbsd is basically a better netbsd. I don't know if they exactly have the same focus, but I know Theo used to work on netbsd and left it for openbsd, and that openbsd is a fork of netbsd.

>Kid Pix
MODS

What do I have to do to get some sort of lightweight browser like that in 2018?

I shouldn't have 500+mb of ram usage, even if I have 50 tabs opened, it's all 90% text for fucks sake

that's a usual excuse people make when they're just talking out of their ass, like speaking in general terms about some challenging effort somehow involves leaking your name and home address, nobody's going to dox you from an anecdote
the more reasonable explanation is that you simply haven't done anything which your simplistic "b-but word 5.1 on my mac plus can do rich text!" boomer shit drives home
>but what about this one class of software that's also designed with embedded systems in mind
would it make you feel more accomplished with that cherrypicking if I said yes?

There is NetSurf. No idea how useable it is tho.

drivers and hardware support, like most of the infinite supply of linux distros

I did. It's just another retarded "help me guys im a victim of (trivial technological inconvenience)" circlejerk, OP doesn't appreciate shit other than the attention he can get from the "muh bloat" crowd over it.

you're still projecting

>the more reasonable explanation is that you simply haven't done anything which your simplistic "b-but word 5.1 on my mac plus can do rich text!" boomer shit drives home
I don't know what this means. You are being nonsensical now. But I see that your jimmies are very rustled.

>would it make you feel more accomplished with that cherrypicking if I said yes?

Using the kernel as an example is not cherry picking, it is literally the heart of millions of machines. If a such a complicated piece of software is only about 30-70Mb, why then do we allow a much less complicated piece of software (such as ms word) sitting on top an OS be 2-3GB in size? It is out of control and an indication of software bloat through bureaucracy and monopolization and control by M$.

The optimization target of a program slips based on how powerful the machine you wrote it on is.

Older programs were more efficient because they HAD to be -- they wouldn't fit on the disks of the day if they weren't, and they needed to run smoothly on something like a 25MHz 68040 (not absurdly hard to do, but it's not terribly fast) and fit in 4MB RAM (with System 7 cheerfully eating 1.2MB of the stuff the whole time).
Modern programs are less efficient because they've got so much breathing room to work with that devs don't give nearly as much of a damn about counting cycles or shaving off disk space. Combined with the modern focus of keeping (limited and/or expensive) programmer time spent low even at the cost of (plentiful) CPU time, you end up with the state of things today.

that being said, some things are actually inexcusable and I'm still immensely confused at why MS Office is so fucking fat
or Windows itself, and I'm still immensely curious as to why the \Windows\ folder went from 2GB in XP days to 10GB from Vista onwards (my C:\Windows\ on 7 is 21GB)
or macOS, which is literally fucking custom tailored for specific hardware

a standard Linux install, full of software, drivers, and libraries is still in the 2-6GB range (hell, a full Slackware install with literally every package offered is 10GB)

you're actually a retard

The hardware fucking sucked, yeah. We don't care about the hardware. The software's important.
The software had to be fast as shit just to get mediocre performance on a machine as slow as that.
Running said software on a modern machine ends up delivering incredible performance, even with the overhead of emulation.

like, running all that shit under Basilisk II on a PIII laptop from 2001, System 7 boots in ten seconds, Word loads in about one second, etc
and on a more modern (2014) machine with an SSD, System 7 boots nearly instantly, Word doesn't even fucking get to show the splash, etc

Do you even know what that word means?

Can't even use javascript

I install the nightly every couple months on windows

>#x27; instead of '
>http, because http probably wouldn't work

>If a such a complicated piece of software is only about 30-70Mb, why then do we allow a much less complicated piece of software (such as ms word) sitting on top an OS be 2-3GB in size?
...maybe because a modern office suite is not actually "less complicated" you fucking idiot?

Thats not a big deal for me. The kind of sites I like to visit most often are perfectly serviceable without javascript. Most useful features they bring to a site like this is the quick reply box and auto loading, but those features arent the most important I think.

No one is talking about Word size. Even if you wrote programs that were functionally identical the 8 bit word size is going to be smaller than the 64 bit word size. And no, processors are not backwards comparability with everything.

yeah, you're throwing all your predisposed assumptions about OP into the air like they're facts and what he originally wanted to say probably isn't anything close to that. if anything he was probably just trying to troll the shit out of you, and it looks like it worked

"Everything you see fits on a 40Mb hard drive" is pretty clear cut. you can shut the fuck up now dude

A plain text document would load fast of course. Try adding tons of formatting.

yep, good times. *sip* They dont make them like this anymore....

This is the point where you go neck yourself

A wild freetard appears

>go neck yourself
Are you twelve?

So, what's your point?

No. My name is Linus Torvalds.

Everything you see fits on a 43MiB CD

Attached: a.png (1024x768, 424K)

tell me more

slitaz.org/en/

Everything you see here fits in 1.5mb

Attached: neet.png (1000x1400, 1.45M)

Everything you see fits on a floppy disk

Attached: serveimage.png (1024x768, 186K)

>The reason why classic MacOS and others were so small is that they were tailored to very specific hardware and used only a small set of drivers. The GUI was incredibly basic with a bare bones window management system and file browser, and maybe a wallpaper. More features always means a larger codebase. With a modern operating system like Linux with all of the GNU compilers and utilities and shells and a window manager and apps, it's not unreasonable for it to take up a GB or two or three.
We still have basic window management systems and basic file browsers and "just a wallpaper". That only leaves drivers. Do you really expect us to believe all the software bloat we have now is due to drivers?

The only reason computers need to keep getting faster and more powerful is to keep up with programmers getting dumber and lazier.

everything you see here fits on the flightplan.txt 1kb

Attached: IMG_9470.png (366x492, 217K)

>System 7 boots in ten seconds
I was actually playing around with System 7.0.1 in Mini vMac on my Raspberry Pi, which is not anywhere close to being a powerful computer. It's a little piece of fuckery that cost me $30. But holy shit does System 7 ever fly on that thing. Installation took less than 2 minutes (and I imagine it could have been even faster had I not needed to fuck around with image files), and the system boots in about 2-3 seconds. I also own a Power Macintosh 7500, and while it hasn't run System 7 in about 18 years (has had 8.6 since about 2000), I don't think I've ever seen it boot that quick with any OS, even with no extensions. And that was a $4000 computer. In fairness, though, I think the 7500's Macintosh Toolkit does a hardware check on boot which takes a good 10-15 seconds, which Mini vMac does not. But still, the same software undeniably runs much, much faster on hardware that cost a tiny fraction of a proper Power Mac in the 1990s. Stuff like that really amazes me, because it drives home just how much hardware has advanced.