Hard drive space required

[SANTANDER]

MS Office 2003 Pro takes much more hard drive space than Office XP Pro, with
same installation type(minimal), i.e. with the same components installed.
Why?
There are no many difference in program functions.

Regards

 

[Tim]

Well...what is your definition of "much more"? Typically, newer versions of
applications are bigger in size than the previous version (there are
exceptions). Are you saying the difference you are seeing is in the 10s of
Megs or the 100s of Megs? What you are seeing may be normal.

Tim

 

[SANTANDER]

Well...what is your definition of "much more"? Typically, newer versions
of applications are bigger in size than the previous version (there are
exceptions). Are you saying the difference you are seeing is in the 10s of
Megs or the 100s of Megs? What you are seeing may be normal.

Tim

---------
MS Office 2003 Pro takes much more hard drive space than Office XP Pro, with
same installation type(minimal), i.e. with the same components installed.
Why?
There are no many difference in program functions.

Regards
-------------

OK, size shown in Add/Remove Program:
Office XP Pro was 208MB
Office 2003 Pro - 289MB(same programs)
Office 2003 Pro with MS Publisher - 365MB

HDD size used is important, there is another programs that also requires
many drive space. Office 2003 components functionality remains almost the
same compare with OfficeXP (except Outlook cosmetic changes).

S.

 

[Tim]

Although I haven't performed a space comparison as you have below, it
doesn't strike me as too surprising. I don't think there is much you can do
about it (at least not with Office) to reclaim disk space outside of
removing some of the applications, on-line clipart, help files, languages,
translators, etc. That is where the term "bloatware" came from.

You'll really enjoy Office 2007...my install takes up 725 Megs ;-)

Tim

 

[DL]

Add/Remove dialogue doesnt neccessarily show the true size.
eg My dialogue shows 2003pro, with all components, at 1.06gb however
TreeSize shows the MS Office and subfolders at 381mb. I realise some office
files may be located elsewere, but I dont believe enough to make up the
difference.

IMO if you are concerned with an extra 150mb or so space then you should be
considering your HD/Storage options, as a win PC with to little free space
can have other problems

 

[SANTANDER]

Add/Remove dialogue doesnt neccessarily show the true size.
eg My dialogue shows 2003pro, with all components, at 1.06gb however
TreeSize shows the MS Office and subfolders at 381mb. I realise some office
files may be located elsewere, but I dont believe enough to make up the
difference.

 

[DL]

Possibly ; but then if you subsequently run defrag what is your problem?

 

[SANTANDER]

Possibly ; but then if you subsequently run defrag what is your problem?

-----------

Well, i heard its the common misconception that frequent defragmentation is
necessary to maintain adequate system performance. Although it may produce
substantial file system speed improvements in some cases, for the typical
Windows user the overall performance improvement is minor or unnoticeable.
Defragging the disk will not stop a system from malfunctioning or crashing
because the filesystem is designed to work with fragmented files. So there
is limitations of defragmentation. Does windows XP automatically defragment
in a background process like Windows Vista?

 

[DL]

I don't believe WinXP Defrag can be set to operate in the background, I use
a third party defrag tool, which I have set to run overnight with my various
other nightly utilities.
However I doubt you would notice any performance glitches, with Office apps,
even if your disk was heavily fragmented, thats not to say you couldnt
technically measure a performance hit.