Resource hungry operating system

[ElPolloDiabl]

Do you think an operating system having twice the resource requirements of it's predecessor for only a couple of extra features is a step forward or a step backward?

[ElPolloDiabl]

So would you prefer to patch and update Amiga OS 3.1 yourself for a lean system or would you just go with 3.9?

Alternatively should you be able to manually (in a user friendly way) unselect/disable certain resource hogs. Pop up help and a lot of background functions as an example. If Windows is a GUI based OS why do you need to use the 'run program x' to get at some of the options.

[ElPolloDiabl]

On the subject of bloatware I don't agree. There are apps that take up 100 times the space, perform slower and only add eye candy over a much leaner app with the same or better functions. It is clearly just shoddy programming.

I do agree that you should be able to push the resources if appropriate.

[ElPolloDiabl]

Do you have any real life examples of an OS doubling in resource requirements for "only a couple of extra features?"

To me, it sounds like you are talking out of ignorance of what happens between major OS revisions.

One word "Windows" on just about every revision.
To a lesser extent Linux and Amiga OS from 3.1 to 3.9 and then OS 4.0.

If I was able to do everything I do now on an 8MB Amiga OS3.1 install and 16MB Windows 95 install what features am I getting now that take up 1GB+ RAM and a much much greater processor. I don't mind current web pages with flash taking up RAM and CPU cycles, but why does it need so much CPU and RAM just to idle the OS when you are playing a game.

[ElPolloDiabl]

What exactly do you mean, "idle the OS" when playing a game?

I didn't want to turn this into a Windows bashing thread... The example I'm using is the minimum system specs printed on computer game boxes. They have one minimum spec for Windows XP and another minimum spec for Windows 7/Vista. It is nearly double the CPU and double the RAM for 7/Vista.