Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
And following that logic, we should activate services for every piece of software in creation. 'cause it's just 1MB (except when it isn't). And then you look at the dozens of services and notice that your computer is crawling at a snail's pace.
If there is no valid reason for a service to exist, how is the negligible impact a valid excuse?
Your logic works for people who don't care about what's on their computer (and usually have a swiss-army-knife collection of all the applications in creation). But to someone who has actually notice the service exists, a MB here and there is morally offensive, not practically offensive.
IOW, you are missing the point, as well as your target audience.
|
No, not at all. Why would one ever want to install software of no value willy nilly just because the performance hit is non-existent or negligible? That's not what I suggested anyone do at all. (And, yes, the resource usage of GWX really is 0% on the CPU and <1mb memory.)
You’re making an incorrect assumption that GWX has no value. I totally disagree. Its value is to (1) help to officially and easily reserve the update and (2) periodically run compatibility checks after initial checks are run to see if there are any conflicts with newly added software or hardware (3) possibly to ensure an automatic and seamless download and installation of the update itself and (4) remind some that the update is imminent so that they can prepare for it, if necessary, and to make the actual W10 update in a timely manner, if desired.
My logic works for anyone who is not overly a techno geek (like some in this thread) and who wants an efficient and easy computing experience without getting bogged down by unnecessary steps that could also be counter-productive. It is not aimed at anyone who finds "morally offensive" <1mb of ram usage for something that may or may not be of value. I can’t even begin to comprehend the mentality of someone who would find something so trivial in life like this to be "morally offensive." No, anyone like that is certainly not my "target audience" as you put it.
Quote:
|
Again, I would venture to say that most of the people who care would prefer to download the update manually rather than keep extraneous services running. Also, the are more likely to be the type to e.g. clean install, keep backup media, etc.
|
If you are talking about those who would find <1mb of potentially unneeded RAM usage "morally offensive" then not only are they in a tiny tiny minority but my comments are not aimed at them. Not at all.
Quote:
I would categorize your categorization of "slight overstatement" as more than a slight overstatement.
And no one made a big issue of it, it simply happened to be mentioned. Inside a discussion where every last little detail gets hashed over endlessly. And the topic was the politics of doing so, e.g. why MS decided to make that change.
The tone of the discussion was plainly focused on its status as a default, preinstalled media player.
|
Then we will just have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, it was at most a slight overstatement. And, IMO, your saying this “simply happened to be mentioned” is at least a slight overstatement in itself.
As for the "tone" of the discussion being centered around the default media player, sure. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean that considerable statements weren't made within the context of that discussion which left the incorrect impression that one might be forced to pay for the ability to play DVDs in W10. Which was what I was trying to clarify.
None of those posts mention that VLC is
free and one doesn't even mention VLC at all. In addition, they all preceded post 834, which I think left the largest misimpression that one might have to pay for DVD playing capabilities in W10. Hence, why I thought it should be clarified/corrected.
--Pat