“But disk space is cheap”

Often you hear people make this statement if someone dares to complain about the disk space requirements of some software. This is the usual response in such a case. But first of all, even though it is cheap, it requires me – the user of a software – to upgrade my disk space and secondly it may just not be possible to upgrade the disk space because the affected machine is a laptop or so. Which makes me wonder whether the statement can be kept up as such. If it is not feasible to upgrade disk space (and more and more people are moving to mobile devices) then such a statement is cynical at best …

// Oliver

This entry was posted in EN, Software. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “But disk space is cheap”

  1. Peter Gibbons says:

    Those people often don’t care about (external) backup, redundancy, archiving, energy consumption, cooling, IO performance, room requirements, data lifecycle management, encryption, SAN infrastructure, storage virtualization, system management…
    If you take all this into account you have costs of 10 to 20€/GByte + monthly spendings for above factors.

  2. Oliver says:

    That is yet another facet of the story, indeed.

    // Oliver

  3. Chris says:

    Sorry, you’re alone with that opinion. All the .NET crap is coming and is going to fill up your space with bazillion .NET versions, millions of side by side assemblies, thousands of COM DLLs and one big managed OS (YES! Managed OS!). There is nothing we can do – oh wait – We can do one thing: FIGHT .NET and go back to our native caves, i mean code!

    If that is not your problem, you should just clear your log files and delete the cache of the browser 😉

    But please! Don’t send us back to structual programming! I hate C.

  4. In the real world there are more issues with java version management especially on x64 than with .Net. But we’ll see how Microsoft copes with .Net’s problems in the future: http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32690

  5. Remko says:

    Don’t forget that large executables on disk are also large executables in memory! Even though memory has become cheap most user still run 32 bit systems with a 4 GB memory limit (and a 2 GB per process virtual memory limit). So I agree with you on this one.
    As for java: I think it’s a mess, so many version and so many incompatibilities OMG. For .net, the library is becoming huge we’ll have to see where it leads to. Perhaps for a business app .net is the way to go but for tools/utilities I prefer win32.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.