Talk:Software bloat

message: Am I the only one who thinks the article needs a huge revamp? Much of it seems pointless, and other parts a plain POV rant. I already edited the introduction paragraphs, but dared not touch the rest of it yet. --62.78.245.62 02:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge Revamp? 

message: The phrase "This is not strictly true. Most distros, including those named above, offer a preset selection of packages that the developer perceives that the average user might need or want. While it is true that most Linux users will only use a small part of this selection, it is possible, even for a beginner, to modify this selection to better suit his or her needs. This software can also be removed or more added later during use." regarding Linux distributions was removed as it looked like a Usenet reply. This paragraph is replaced, however it reflects my very own view :) --212.174.145.126 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I'd mostly remove and/or heavily edit the middle part of the article which seems to just present a debatable hypothesis through rather twisted paths of logic, and present it as an absolute. I think this article could explore not only the historical background of the term as it does, but also the various angles of what makes up the image of a program being "bloated",  and just what, if anything, makes "justification" or "unjustification". "Bloat" is only a descriptive term, after all, and a vague one at that. --62.78.245.62 05:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite true 

message: I'm not sure it is a good idea. Software bloat seems to be about at the application/system level, but code bloat at the intra-application and below level. --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code bloat merge suggestion 

message: The unknown citation is perfectly known on Wikipedia : it is Wirth's law !—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.190.39 (talk • contribs) 10 September 2006
:Quite true. Thanks. I've edited the article accordingly, moving the aphorism to the end of the "Background" section. CWC(talk) 06:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wirth's Law 

message: Isn't Windows, especially the later versions, an excellent example of bloatware? Shouldn't that somehow be mentioned in the article? Subversive element 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I can agree, but if you have reputable references for what otherwise appears to be POV bashing, then feel free to get it written up and added. -- Mikeblas 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what source would you like? Why not look at windows itself. It is bloatware, by this wiki definition. But to state why (not being a source myself, just to give info) is as follows: Windows is an operating system designed to fill all available memory (your entire hard drive). It places archiving and system files through out the disk. It uses far more RAM then it should. I'm sure you could find a book about this, that would be less POV, though I'm not against windows, its what I use, its just the system itself has a lot of quirks. Zanduar 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, you can't include it until you can find a reliable third party source that provides it as fact. -Weston.pace 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the sole problem, then I believe it's fixed: Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Software_Bloat.--portugal (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that each version of windows has a lot more features than the last and also needs to accomodate new hardware and communications standards.  Vista is way too big mind Lovefist233 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to point to «Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut said the operating system had become bloated.» That said: Yes, it does need more hardware and communication standards. (POV)It requires 15G of space though - that's creepy.(/POV)--portugal (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Windows 

message: Does the term "Bloatware" apply to Office suite (e.g. Powerpoint & Word) & other applications (graphics editors, etc)  documents containing excessively large images that have not been compressed using the "Compress Images" functionalties?  Rcd2951 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated Microsoft Office data files? 

message: I'd do it, but I'm not exactly sure what its trying to say (Unix is not my field). But I can tell its confused:
"The X Window System, which is the most commonly-used windowing system for flavors of Unix, is a classic example of bloatware, partly due to its age and its receptiveness as a Free software project to extensions and additions. Until recently, the implementations was completely monolithic, and the user was forced to e.g install all drivers, when they would obviously need only a handful of them. Things were not better on the developer side, as a minor change required recompilation of the whole. Situation improved recently, as its main implementation by the X.Org Foundation went modular starting with X11R7.0. The X protocol itself remains criticized though."
-Gohst 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is really messy... its like a crazy fiddler.  Okay it should be fixed now.Getonyourfeet 07:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes a fair point mind, xorg is pretty bloated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovefist233 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone edit this paragraph 

message: A good indication of software being bloatware is seeing the installation filesize increase dramatically from one version to the next:
Idea 4.5 (53 Mb)
Idea 6.0 (66.2 Mb)
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/download/index.html
ICQ 98a (1.7 MB)
ICQ 2000a (6.2 MB)
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=icq
Nero Burning ROM 3.0.2.0 (1.8 MB)
Nero Ultra Edition 6.6.0.13 (33.0 MB)
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=nero
Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0 (10.7 MB)
Macromedia Dreamweaver MX (49.4 MB)
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=dreamweaver
ZoneAlarm 3.7 (3.7 MB)
ZoneAlarm 6.5 (13.0 MB)
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=zalarm
Windows Vista is bloatware. That's why I'm still using XP.
84.110.211.107 10:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it isn't as simple as measuring and comparing installation file size. "Bloat" is features that aren't necessary. When we compare installation sizes, we don't know if the added size is due to necessary features, or unnecessary features. We aslo don't know if the size is comprised of the software itself, or documentation; if the online help documentation trippled in size, certainly that would be beneficial, but it would also drive up the size of the installer image. I think your assertions are fundamentally flawed. -- Mikeblas 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: On 2007-04-05, Wall Street Journal, in Walter S. Mossberg's Personal Technology column, he talks about buying a new Windows computer.  When he turns it on for the first time, he's bombarded by trial versions of software, icon-based ads, teaser programs, etc.  He referred to these as craplets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.101.225 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRAPLETS 

message: It's unnecessary and disruptive to tag all those paragraphs with the "citation needed" tag. Those facts are pretty obvious and/or widely known.
: Agree - the citation needed marks seem to be there in the name of a dissenting POV. 213.46.174.149 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Half of the "citations needed" are just common sense observations or basic knowledge. For example, I removed the one where PCs of the 1970s had limited disk space and memory. Why would a citation be needed for that? Is the fact that some PCs back then had only 1K of RAM not good enough? It's like saying "cars of old couldn't drive at more than 30 km/h" and then requiring a citation for it. Jeez, get a clue. SJ2571 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single fact needs to be cited. If a fact really is obvious, then it should be easy to find a few citations. Shinobu (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Also... «Additionally, the spread of computers through all levels of business and home life has produced a software industry many times larger than it was in the 1970s. [citation needed]» : it strikes me as an unnecessary burden to find reliable citations for such trivial facts. Will we next search for such sources as, let's find an example, those stating that nano-technology has advanced since the early 90s? (POV) Not wishing to be disruptive, excess request for citations is like excess bureaucracy: it hurts more than it heals. (/POV) Thanks for reading.--portugal (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, all facts need to be cited. In this case, though, a weasel-inline template might be more appropriate. After all, no computer has unlimited memory or disk space. On the other hand, PCs "back then" (whatever that actually means) had far more than 1K of RAM. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you mean to say I am partially right, but that I am not being careful to not confuse one good cell with the whole body. If so, I agree — but I feel overwhelmed at times (/excuse). About the snippet I pasted: it is undisputed that computers have spread both in numbers and capacity: today's computers are much more common and much mightier than they were in the 70's... that strikes me as pure common sense. Should we, either way, include some sort of reference, a link to a place where they have a graphic of the number of computers in the world or something like that? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, or if you were referring to other things. --portugal (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I agree the inline [citation needed] tagging is completely OTT. Gerbrant a lot of stuff is either logically obvious, or links to other articles in reference. Something like "(see Moore's Law).[citation needed]" is completely ridiculous! I'm going to remove that one right now, citations for Moore's Law should be kept with that article! - MattOates (Ulti) (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 
NOT
 needed 

message: That the section "Reasons for existence" primarily cites a Mozilla dev is a bit rich. Also, there are browsers that to everything, or almost everything, that Netscape or Firefox do, and sometimes better, while still being much leaner. Shinobu (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also written almost ten years before your comment, but whatever.  Who am I to talk, you wrote this seven years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.60.144 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Reasons for existence 

message: Shouldwe make list of bloated software? it citation can be based on forums or news. 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should. Defining bloat is very difficult, particularly if the approach this article uses is continued. "Unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder, so finding features which are universally not "required" is difficult. Further, estimating their size and quantitative contribution to the "bloat" is very difficult. Finally, WP:RS specifically forbids using forum posts as references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: List 

message: I've replaced a removed  tag, which was removed with the comment that " removed "citation needed"/FACT tag - the next sentence shows an example.".
The example's reference doesn't establish the facts asserted by the tagged sentence. The sentence says the size of the library causes the problem, and that the library has unnecessary features. The provided link doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, as it's a link to a bug database for FireFox and essentially unpublished. This bug database is essentially a self-published blog, as it accepts unedited and unverified submissions from users. Further, it doesn't identify the named library as the problem conclusively; some people say that disabling the library cures the problem, while others say that disabling the library causes no difference. It doesn't support the assertion that a build not using Pango "renders pages significantly faster", either.
Finally, this single example doesn't adequately support the broad claim made, or explain that "unnecessary" is a situational and subjective term. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact tag replaced 

message: I've added a  tag to the "examples" section. While the section uses references to show that the recommended available space for installing Windows has become larger in subsequent versions, it doesn't explain if that increase in size is because of the addition of actual "bloat", the addition of required features, or the addition of things that aren't even core parts of the OS, such as artwork, localization files, fonts, or ride-along applications. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  synthesis tag 

message: I've been searching the Web in vain for an acceptable antonym to bloatware. I'm sure that I used to know one, but I can't remember it. Some examples of what I mean are like TextEdit and Bean on the Mac (medium functionality word processing software), and Preview (Mac) and, if it still exists, Foxit for Windows (faster, less full-featured, PDF readers).
Low resource software? Not "liteware", since that seems to mean the slimmed down free version of software for purchase.Bostoner (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonym 

message: How come there is no mention of Adobe's programs on this page? There is obviously software bloating going on with CS3/4. Even something as simple as uninstalling can take 30 minutes plus. Photoshop CS3 - 20 minutes to install, Photoshop 7 - 5 minutes, plus the Program file sizes have increased 10 fold. It's either deliberate bloating or shoddy programming. 86.128.15.225 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adobe CS 

message: Source? Where do these numbers come from? And tested on which system? Windows XP may take more or less than 200-300 MHz on a single/dual-core system. By themselves they mean nothing in a formal context.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And try to run Windows 10 with just 1GB of RAM once. Even 2GB are too less today.
--Baerbeisser (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows hardware requirements 

message: I added Adobes line of products to the examples section, but reading it again it seems a little biased, can someone rewrite it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normankev (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added Adobe products to the Example 

message: "After Adobe bought out Macromedia the packages grew to around 3 Gb, yet the new feature list is negligible". Adobe's CS line of products are also accused of being "very slow to install and uninstall". An average install of Photoshop for example takes around 7 minutes to install." The first sentance calls Adobe products bloatware, the second re-enforces that, but the third states quite the opposite. It doesn't seem quite realistic to me, either - I'd suggest removing it, or finding a source on this. 85.146.78.111 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section doesn't come close to capturing how horrendously bloated Adobe products are. Easily the most morbidly obese software I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.149.183 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statement on Adobe products 

message: A good example is Adobe's Acrobat Reader; long the standard in PDF readers, it has grown with each version, with the current installation package at 37 MB
Need a cite; is Adobe Reader really guilty of THIS?
Yes, it is. But that page will change over time and depending on your operating system, so I'm not sure how to cite it. --Scgtrp (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it state: "time constraints may result in remnants of old code being included when new versions of a program are built"? --DanielPharos (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Adobe Reader size 

message: As someone who has recently opted out of the MicroSloth world I write for information and clarification. Was there ever any real functionality lacking in XP? If I could have bought a new PC without Vista or Windows7 but just had simple XP (which I had already purchased and would not expect to buy again) I might have stuck with MS. So tell please was/is there any real improved functionality in Vista/Windows7? Or was it just MS forever trying to maximise profits and sell us all products that we don't really need? If so I would nominate Vista/Windows 7 as prime examples of bloatware.
 SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was XP good enough? 

message: Proprietary software requires a few features of software development that contributes to software bloat, because the particular features an individual user wants cannot be chosen from an open library:
1. backward compatibility - newer versions of a program or development environment must often support older documents or program instances, e.g. Microsoft Word documents or Java applications
2. broader utility - a newer version of a program is often given features that are not well-implemented by the program / language / development tool in question, but is requested by the users and developers who are already comfortable with it. "No free lunch" says that the further such a product reaches from its original design purpose, the more awkward and bloated the code for implementation will be -- and often in many directions at once.
3. the horrifying legacy -- think COBOL and Y2K, or MS-DOS and 32K RAM optimization. (It's still optimized for 32K, isn't it? Scary, huh?)
Those are just the first (two) off the top of my head, and I may add more later, but the point I'm trying to make here is that it is the closed nature of the source code which makes for the lack of independent compiling, or even the ability to write separate plug-in apps (assuming that even plug-in development requires a certain amount of knowledge of the source code in one form or another). 
Is there a way to make this point well in the article? (It seems to me I've made a hash of it even in terms of a talk page discussion.) :( -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the connection between "proprietary software" and "software bloat". How does the first lead to the latter? (1) also goes for open source software. (2) as well. I don't understand the point of (3). Also, what's that 32K RAM optimization you're talking about? --DanielPharos (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual Property and Software Bloat 

message: This is really incredible and shows what we understand for Software bloat.
Windows Embedded Stanrdard 7 is globally Windows 7 without a few (really FEW) components like speech, games...
Result?
RAM requisites for Windows 7 Home Premium: 1GB
RAM requisites for Windows Embedded 7: less than 512MB.
And it has Aero, libraries, same kernel, media center, wmp12, ie9...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcsances (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the complete story. Windows Embedded Enterprise DriveWindows7 requires "1GB RAM (32Bit) 2GB RAM (64Bit)" (see  ), which exactly matches Windows 7's minimum system requirements. So I think the edition you got your specs from, is more stripped than the most complete edition of Windows 7 Embedded... Even so, what's your point? How does removing features prove bloatware? And why would Microsoft be laughing...? --DanielPharos (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This means Microsoft laughs at us. 

message: I have imported and rewritten some content recently added to the Bit rot article (where it was even more out of context than here). I note that, in the long and tortuous evolution of this article, various editors have purged content relating to bloatware in the sense of unwanted software, yet this is a common use of the term. Since  currently redirects to this article, I've separated out a new section to try to clarify the different uses of the term. Maybe Bloatware deserves a separate article but given the ambiguous usage I think its probably better here than on its own. --KenBailey (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloatware (again) 

message: I don't think the number of practical functions in software, such as support for many file formats, nor limited backwards compatibility necessarily have to result in bloat. It is the inefficiency in each of the modules implementing those features that causes it, as their resource requirements add up.
Inefficiency often arises when a heavy graphical interface is added to software in attempt to convince the customer than the new version is a radical improvement over the previous one, worthy of paying for it again. A few new functions or a marginal improvement in speed would not give as good of an impression. Expensive software also adds increasingly draconian copy-protection layers, to most of the code, whereas before the license was only checked during installation or startup.
For example, a configuration utility for a peripheral device, such as a printer or a trackpad, today may include a full-color photograph of the device, where a diagram or even a compact set text input fields would perfectly suffice. This is especially true if the purpose of the utility is highly technical, intended for experts only, such as related to overclocking, and any program included with a system driver. As a result, most drivers are bloated, especially printer drivers developed by Hewlett-Packard.
Because a graphical interface is relatively difficult to create within a short deadline, developers are pushed to use abstraction frameworks such as an HTML engine or .NET for it. Some HP drivers install a web server on the system to create a user interface. A modern multimedia web-client (browser) to access such an interface is extremely bloated. C# might be "modern", but it is not efficient. Most Net Framework applications require obscene amounts of memory, start up slowly, have UI's that can't scale up to give access to a large number of features, and require installation of bulky updates to the OS, potentially destabilizing it. Often it is not straightforward to "de-bloat" such an application, while maintaining access to all the settings, because an elegant interface doesn't exist, and ripping out the pictures leaves visible glitches.
As an example of software with a large number of functions, and yet without bloat, I'd name the digital audio workstation REAPER. As of version 4, the installation package is 7-9 megabytes, at least 10-20 times smaller than that of competing products, such as Steinberg Cubase. A single DLL implementing support for one file format (codec like FLAC) is about 300K. The user interface and the settings dialog are very complex, and could be described as "cluttered". But the program is not bloated, navigation is responsive and startup times are short. The Settings are a Windows-native dialog, as opposed to being created in a custom framework (Qt, GTK, WPF or, eww, XAML), which would have to be linked to the program and distributed with it.
Some users have described the visual appearance of REAPER as old-fashioned. Perhaps big software houses must respond to that kind criticism, thus feeding the vicious cycle where graphical bloat symbolizes progress, and even more bloat is later demanded.
Sony Sound Forge, a single track audio editor, not directly comparable to a DAW, most definitely is bloated. The installation package has increased from 42 MB in version 8, to 71 MB in version 9, to 152 MB in version 10. Measurable feautures in a program like this are the quantity of the processing filters and I/O codecs. Size of one DLL implementing read/save/realtime playback of the FLAC format: 1.1 MB (v9), 5 MB (v10); or "raw" (very simple legacy formats like A-law): 360 KB (v7), 800 KB (v9), 4.1 MB (v10). Keeping support for these formats would be practically free had the library remained around 300K. Sound Forge ships with its own plugins, and doesn't carry compatibility with any 3rd party modules (unlike Windows Media or Winamp, etc.). Each DLL contains copy-protection code, pictures and unreferenced Unicode text strings.
I don't have the numbers ready for Windows. But the size of Vista was a few times that of Win98/2000/XP combined, and obviously did not include a fully functional DOS. The compatibility was only limited (much like that of the raw audio formats). The compatibility that they have to worry about is around the superfluous visual themes, and several times moved and redirected system folders, etc. Bloat new to XP/Vista which they introduced.
Then there is the bloating of the Windows/Installer directory, where Microsoft intentionally copies the complete MSI package, essentially doubling the size of applications (where the bloat might seem justified), just so that the package can be verified against a hash sum included with a certificate, and the publisher's name displayed to the user. That is an epic waste of disk space for very little gain. Therefore most applications installed via MSI can be considered bloated relative to other software installed via Inno or NSIS frameworks, irrespective of their backwards compatibility or number of features.
I feel that criticism of bloating sometimes is an excuse to remove support for older formats, even though they could be carried over essentially for free.
-- J7n (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of features is not bloat 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Software bloat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070302073052/http://www.theinquirer.net:80/default.aspx?article=37873 to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37873
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. Good job Cyberbot II. —Iketsi (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified