I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
Because a full install of your app didn't fit on one disk.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:21 AM, <mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
[excessive quoting removed by server]
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
Ditto people complaining about the size of the .NET framework.
On 2017-07-10 04:29, Alan Bourke wrote:
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
Ditto people complaining about the size of the .NET framework.
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore? Today's hardware & storage make those arguments pretty moot, don't they? Sure, you still want to design for efficiencies but don't have to worry about running out of space any more.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, at 04:11 PM, mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore?
These days it tends to be complaining about major console game releases requiring multi-GB day one patches (up to 15GB is not unheard of) before you can play them.
This is partly due to the fact that with the advent of 4K resolution and high quality sound even a Blu-Ray can't hold all the assets.
On 2017-07-10 11:16, Alan Bourke wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, at 04:11 PM, mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore?
These days it tends to be complaining about major console game releases requiring multi-GB day one patches (up to 15GB is not unheard of) before you can play them.
This is partly due to the fact that with the advent of 4K resolution and high quality sound even a Blu-Ray can't hold all the assets.
Ok, but OTHER THAN THE GAME WORLD, .... <g>
The only memory problems I see these days are to do with allocating gigabytes and gigabytes of base memory to VM's... what a change from using 4Kb and 8Kb machines which had to use overlays held on tape and/or the latest 2.5Mb (yes Mega Byte) fixed Exchangeable drives (FEDS).
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com Sent: 10 July 2017 16:11 To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: Funny flashback Friday memory
On 2017-07-10 04:29, Alan Bourke wrote:
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
Ditto people complaining about the size of the .NET framework.
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore? Today's hardware & storage make those arguments pretty moot, don't they? Sure, you still want to design for efficiencies but don't have to worry about running out of space any more.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Our virtual server was set as a C & D drive each at 100 G. Symantec anti-virus has killed that 100 G size on the C:\ making us give 200 G for a C drive nowadays.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:11 AM, < mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-10 04:29, Alan Bourke wrote:
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides
the
program/application EXE itself. LOL
Ditto people complaining about the size of the .NET framework.
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore? Today's hardware & storage make those arguments pretty moot, don't they? Sure, you still want to design for efficiencies but don't have to worry about running out of space any more.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
On 2017-07-10 11:35, Stephen Russell wrote:
Our virtual server was set as a C & D drive each at 100 G. Symantec anti-virus has killed that 100 G size on the C:\ making us give 200 G for a C drive nowadays.
Wait...are you saying SAV needed a ton of space so that's why you increased the drive size of C: ?
Yes. These are purely app servers and we have 100+ of them. Cleaning out the non-necessary logs just to have room is a RPITA. At least for those people in opps. I only have to maintain 3 SQL servers where I do run into similar things.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, < mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-10 11:35, Stephen Russell wrote:
Our virtual server was set as a C & D drive each at 100 G. Symantec anti-virus has killed that 100 G size on the C:\ making us give 200 G for a C drive nowadays.
Wait...are you saying SAV needed a ton of space so that's why you increased the drive size of C: ?
[excessive quoting removed by server]
It's funny really. These days, I tell my clients how small of a footprint my applications will have on their systems because we can do full installations with data and debug logs fully populated with less than 100Mb.
It's surprising how many people think it is cool that we take up so little space. :)
Paul H. Tarver Tarver Program Consultants, Inc. Email: paul@tpcqpc.com
-----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:11 AM To: profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: Funny flashback Friday memory
On 2017-07-10 04:29, Alan Bourke wrote:
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
wrote:
I recall back in the late 90s or early 2000s people poo-pooing the VFP installations that had to carry the 15 megabyte runtimes also besides the program/application EXE itself. LOL
Ditto people complaining about the size of the .NET framework.
Does anybody complain about the size of any softwares anymore? Today's hardware & storage make those arguments pretty moot, don't they? Sure, you still want to design for efficiencies but don't have to worry about running out of space any more.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
On 2017-07-10 14:07, Paul H. Tarver wrote:
It's funny really. These days, I tell my clients how small of a footprint my applications will have on their systems because we can do full installations with data and debug logs fully populated with less than 100Mb.
It's surprising how many people think it is cool that we take up so little space. :)
Paul H. Tarver Tarver Program Consultants, Inc. Email: paul@tpcqpc.com
Yep. Once upon a time we were the fat ones; now we're the very lean ones. lol
-
Alan Bourke -
Dave Crozier -
mbsoftwaresolutions＠mbsoftwaresolutions.com -
Paul H. Tarver -
Stephen Russell