>some linuxfanboy said .
A little presumptuous aren't we? I have a feeling the AC was trying to pull legs...
> Who the hell has a registry in the GB size ,
> if you don't know enough about windows to comment, don't
Only Windows users care about this magical "registry" thing that is the cause of all their computing issues, including and not limited to their ability to actually user a computer. Only Windows users' are stupid enough to spend money on tools that "Sweep" their machines.
Also FYI "Linux" is a kernel, I know it's been said a lot but if you're going to attempt one-up-manship you should do your research. There's no such thing as a "Linux fanboi"...
> FYI on my vista desktop which has been installed for over a year
> now and is probably as bloated as it is going to get the registry files
> come out at 82 MB
Well, it's not really the size of the registry file that matters ... it's the fact the Windows keeps most if not all of it's important configuration data there yet seems to lack the ability to manage it properly and then allows tools written by would-be-malware authors to go diddling around in there.
> On another note a basic install of OS X 10.5 is bigger than an install of Vista
Which edition of OSX and Vista? PPC binaries should be bigger than i386 ones due the smaller instruction set, and 32bit i386 binaries should be smaller than 64bit amd64 ones... what is the functionality/per megabyte of each? Without these details your statement means nothing... Sinclair Basic is like 16KB, should we all be running that instead?