I use a standalone browser that's barely more than 1MB - OffbyOne - How big is Windows 7 now - 17 GB? Does it have to be that big to function well? I'm looking for efficiency which to me means a big processor couple with small efficient software. I do think software engineers are lazy.There are much more efficient ways to implement things.I'll buy Microsoft software when it gets smaller AND more powerfull - ie: faster. Just because multi-cored cpu's and fast RAM and big HDD's are cheap and powerfull, it doesn't mean we should be slowing our computers down with massive buggy software bundles. I stopped buying an O/S after Win 98 SE because I didn't want a big piece of c**p from Redmond.I'm currently on Tiny XP and it's much less than 1 GB. I think we'll see dual cpu socket motherboards in the next year-eighteen months and also 6-8 core chips migrating from the server and mainframe architechture.I think there is already 2 cpu 12 core servers from AMD and Intel is bound to catch up with the 32 micro metre cores. Is it just me or processing power is stalling? Quote from: vyshane 123377 Good question. We are not capable of building complex systems without it. Each layer may dial in a degree of inefficiency. When we send a tweet from our iPhone, we may be using: TCP/IP, HTTP, SSL, OAuth, XML (or JSON, RSS, Atom), Unicode, Cocoa Touch, Media Layer, Core Services, Core OS. One way to manage complexity is to break things down into manageable chunks. Our brain does not have enough bandwidth. It is beyond human capability to keep track of bits and registers when we are trying to program our iPhone to send out a tweet. However, we quickly found out that humans don't scale as well as the hardware. When hardware became faster, we tried to build more and more complex software. What people used to do with 1MHz CPUs was limited by what the hardware could do at the time. It is simply beyond human ability to implement complex systems using machine code. It's not that programmers have become lazy.

Event 440 kernel pnp