This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is essentially moronic and should be rewritten from scratch by accomplished and acknowledged system engineers.
could it be the (MS) windows and intel conspiracy (oligopoli) to drive the consumers into a crazy wheels latest bloated os and software >> need faster cpu/ram >> need latest bloated software optimized for new cpu >> need more cpu/ram upgrade >> so on... http://wiki.dennyhalim.com/hype-or-else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.81.142.65 ( talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article; there's no corresponding reason why so its presence in the article is rather unsubstantiated
I didn't like it either, but felt I had to leave something of the rant that I found at first (I wrote most of the rest) Williamv1138 06:07, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
The reference to ACDSee was removed for two reasons: 1. ACDSee 7 is faster than ACDSee 3. 2. There was a huge difference between ACDSee 6 and 3, most notably the addition of a more industrial grade database.
In Why bloatware?, there is a statement in the 5th paragraph:
Sounds like an absolute to me. I mean, the gain depends widely on how bad the problem is and what kind of program it is. If you take a productivity application, optimizing it won't get you much revenue. On the flip side, if you ship a first person shooter without optimization, it could kill you; optimizing could make it the game of the year. -- Astronouth7303 15:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I was thinking about this article and have thought that the issue of "bloat" is not unique to computer software vendors. It is characteristic of any large "one size fits all" vendor.
Consider a large electronic component supplier "Component Express/ComEx" (i.e. a company like DigiKey). ComEx stocks 500000 different products. Let's say (this is from the article) 80% of the customers only buy 20% of the products (for ComEx this would be more like 99% and 1% or more extreme than that, given the numbre of products stocked). But, just like Microsoft, or your favourite "bloatware" vendor, ComEx can't reduce their range because everybody might only want a very small selection of products but everybody wants different things. What good is it to you if they don't have the product you want? Nothing at all! And no amount of cost analysis or other accounting talk will reassure you.
A software example would be with Microsoft Word (not criticising Microsoft directly, it's the software I use). I have never used the "Double Underline" feature for text myself. So I could say it is a waste of resources to have a feature there I never use. But once again, Microsoft are not writing the software for just me, they're writing it for millions of others too.
Creeping featurism is a fact of life in software that is intended for wide scale sale to the public ("one size fits all"). This is due to various software issues that I will only go into on request. The real issue is how well "bloat" it is managed and implemented.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples of services you never use but still pay for, in your company, in the Government, etc. It's the same situation.
Thanks for Listening, El Barto
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)
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
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)
I've just rewritten the Microsoft paragraph in an attempt to give it maybe a little more than just the merest passing aquantance with WP:V. It was the worst paragraph, but frankly the whole page is really rather dodgy. -- simxp ( talk) 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Every version of Windows at least from Win 95 onwards was considered as bloated, mostly because of memory requirements. i.E. Win 95 needs 4MB RAM, but to run smoothly, you should have at least 8MB RAM and also Microsoft recommends a 486 CPU, althought until 1992 there where still a lot of 386-systems sold. Similar the 16MB needed for Win 98 was more then a lot computers sold only about 2.5 years before had installed and 24Mb is recommended, which is below the standad configuration until somtimes in 1997. Win 2000 needs 32MB and 64MB are recommended, even in 1999 many computers with only 32MB were sold. Win XP needs 64Mb and 128MB are recommended, in 2000 a lot of PCs with only 64MB were sold. Vista needs 512MB, which is more then many computers, which were sold only a few months before the release of Vista, have and even 1Gb is recommended. 7 needs 1GB, which is still more then many computers sold in the first half of 2006, but because memory prices were falling rapidly from about 2006 to 2008, not a lot computers with less then 2GB were sold after 2007. -- MrBurns ( talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Software bloat is a derogatory term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to use larger amounts of system resources (mass storage space, processing power and/or RAM) than older programs. It is also used in a more general context to describe programs which appear to be using more system resources than necessary , or implementing extraneous features. Software exhibiting these tendencies is referred to as bloatware or, less commonly, fatware
Can somebody explain me the phrase necessary in the above definition.
User 203.49.223.69 ( talk · contribs) left this plea on this page a couple of hours ago. I've refactored it for readability.
I've never used dreamweaver. Perhaps someone else can help Punksta? Cheers, CWC (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does "resource hog" redirect here? A resource hog is a program that uses a lot of resources -- perhaps even by design, in order to complete an intensive task -- which is a different concept than software bloat. -- Mikeblas 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Some business people believe the only way to keep a customer using their product is to continually sprinkle it with new nonsense features that slow it down and degrade it. Usually the initial product is already badly engineered, so this is analogous to sprinkling glitter on dogs poo. It's still poo no matter how much glitter (features) you sprinkle on it.
It's unnecessary and disruptive to tag all those paragraphs with the "citation needed" tag. Those facts are pretty obvious and/or widely known.
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)
Shouldwe make list of bloated software? it citation can be based on forums or news. 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced a removed {{ fact}} 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)
I've added a {{ synthesis}} 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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Baerbeisser ( talk) 11:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
A good example is Adobe's Acrobat Reader citation needed; 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)
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)
Starting with Windows 7, the minimum hardware requirements for 64-bit Windows is now greater than the 32-bit version.
From the Software bloat page, I added this information:
The minimum hardware requirements for 64-bit versions of Windows 7 are 2GB RAM and 20GB hard disk space, compared to 1GB RAM and 16GB hard disk space required for 32-bit versions of Windows 7.
The table in the "Examples" section only shows 32-bit versions. Why does the 64-bit version of Windows 7 require double the amount of RAM and 4GB extra hard disk space just for being 64-bit? Should this really be added to the table in the "Examples" section, making it clear it's the 64-bit version of Windows 7?
TurboForce (
talk) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Dear folks,
I agree that many of the examples here are subjective. How do we know that a software is bloated if there's no counter-example?
I'd suggest collecting examples of comparisons, where the same functionality is done by two programmes that are very different in size/speed/memory usage etc. That would be a clear show of bloatware.
Of course it's almost impossible to find to software programs doing exactly the same functions, but we'd have to resort to those that have high enough similarity, especially with functions that are used most frequently. (Whatever some guys wrote on the Firefox example, if a function is used by say <1% of users, it's not so important to have everyone download and run it.)
The comparisons would have to include some numerical data (even if no two installations are the same), such as installer size, installed program size, memory consumption, loading time etc.
Hoemaco ( talk) 12:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
To start, I'll list Adobe Reader versus Foxit Reader. Both basically do the same: read and print PDF files. (Ok, I'm not aware of true differences, but I'd consider that any differences are used by the minority of users, considering myself an average user of pdf's). Adobe Reader installed size for me was at least 80..100MB (now I defy myself not giving exact data, but having been fed up by adobe I deleted it so long time ago - maybe a current user can give exact numbers). Also, it had a noticeable loading time (at least 2 seconds) and pdf files were often "lagging" when scrolled.
In comparison, Foxit reader installed is 8.2MB for me now. It loads faster (ok, subjective, hard to measure) and no lags in scrolling. (Oh and btw you can download a free -though watermarking- pdf converter for it). I'd consider this a perfect example of bloatware. Someone told me that this has to do with a certain programming style, something like they always "patch" the old software and stuff just "accumulates" instead of re-writing the whole from scratch. Sorry, though I did study programming, have not heard of such techniques - though understandably, as our teacher would rather advise us against this. But I can quite imagine this - hardware IS cheaper than man-hours for a *real* programmer.
Hoemaco (
talk) 12:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Another example, though not a real comparison. I bought a Fuji digital camera and installed its software (my card reader didn't know sdhc and the camera doesn't work in usb storage mode). The software for downloading the pics is huge (sorry, I'll have to log in another computer to find it, don't remember the exact number, will update the post later), and it's very slow, it took at least half an hour to download photos which would have taken a few minutes at most with a normal usb operation - which it does since I bought a new card reader. So the comparison here is not with another software, but with simply reading the card with a card reader. But the functionality is pretty much the same. (Well, not exactly, as with the card reader it's waay easier and everything goes where I want and only what I want happens. Also the software might include some basic editing programme but that could also be made in a few MB instead of hundreds.) I'll try to find out the software name and size. Hoemaco ( talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Bloatware 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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Software bloat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is essentially moronic and should be rewritten from scratch by accomplished and acknowledged system engineers.
could it be the (MS) windows and intel conspiracy (oligopoli) to drive the consumers into a crazy wheels latest bloated os and software >> need faster cpu/ram >> need latest bloated software optimized for new cpu >> need more cpu/ram upgrade >> so on... http://wiki.dennyhalim.com/hype-or-else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.81.142.65 ( talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article; there's no corresponding reason why so its presence in the article is rather unsubstantiated
I didn't like it either, but felt I had to leave something of the rant that I found at first (I wrote most of the rest) Williamv1138 06:07, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
The reference to ACDSee was removed for two reasons: 1. ACDSee 7 is faster than ACDSee 3. 2. There was a huge difference between ACDSee 6 and 3, most notably the addition of a more industrial grade database.
In Why bloatware?, there is a statement in the 5th paragraph:
Sounds like an absolute to me. I mean, the gain depends widely on how bad the problem is and what kind of program it is. If you take a productivity application, optimizing it won't get you much revenue. On the flip side, if you ship a first person shooter without optimization, it could kill you; optimizing could make it the game of the year. -- Astronouth7303 15:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I was thinking about this article and have thought that the issue of "bloat" is not unique to computer software vendors. It is characteristic of any large "one size fits all" vendor.
Consider a large electronic component supplier "Component Express/ComEx" (i.e. a company like DigiKey). ComEx stocks 500000 different products. Let's say (this is from the article) 80% of the customers only buy 20% of the products (for ComEx this would be more like 99% and 1% or more extreme than that, given the numbre of products stocked). But, just like Microsoft, or your favourite "bloatware" vendor, ComEx can't reduce their range because everybody might only want a very small selection of products but everybody wants different things. What good is it to you if they don't have the product you want? Nothing at all! And no amount of cost analysis or other accounting talk will reassure you.
A software example would be with Microsoft Word (not criticising Microsoft directly, it's the software I use). I have never used the "Double Underline" feature for text myself. So I could say it is a waste of resources to have a feature there I never use. But once again, Microsoft are not writing the software for just me, they're writing it for millions of others too.
Creeping featurism is a fact of life in software that is intended for wide scale sale to the public ("one size fits all"). This is due to various software issues that I will only go into on request. The real issue is how well "bloat" it is managed and implemented.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples of services you never use but still pay for, in your company, in the Government, etc. It's the same situation.
Thanks for Listening, El Barto
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)
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
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)
I've just rewritten the Microsoft paragraph in an attempt to give it maybe a little more than just the merest passing aquantance with WP:V. It was the worst paragraph, but frankly the whole page is really rather dodgy. -- simxp ( talk) 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Every version of Windows at least from Win 95 onwards was considered as bloated, mostly because of memory requirements. i.E. Win 95 needs 4MB RAM, but to run smoothly, you should have at least 8MB RAM and also Microsoft recommends a 486 CPU, althought until 1992 there where still a lot of 386-systems sold. Similar the 16MB needed for Win 98 was more then a lot computers sold only about 2.5 years before had installed and 24Mb is recommended, which is below the standad configuration until somtimes in 1997. Win 2000 needs 32MB and 64MB are recommended, even in 1999 many computers with only 32MB were sold. Win XP needs 64Mb and 128MB are recommended, in 2000 a lot of PCs with only 64MB were sold. Vista needs 512MB, which is more then many computers, which were sold only a few months before the release of Vista, have and even 1Gb is recommended. 7 needs 1GB, which is still more then many computers sold in the first half of 2006, but because memory prices were falling rapidly from about 2006 to 2008, not a lot computers with less then 2GB were sold after 2007. -- MrBurns ( talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Software bloat is a derogatory term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to use larger amounts of system resources (mass storage space, processing power and/or RAM) than older programs. It is also used in a more general context to describe programs which appear to be using more system resources than necessary , or implementing extraneous features. Software exhibiting these tendencies is referred to as bloatware or, less commonly, fatware
Can somebody explain me the phrase necessary in the above definition.
User 203.49.223.69 ( talk · contribs) left this plea on this page a couple of hours ago. I've refactored it for readability.
I've never used dreamweaver. Perhaps someone else can help Punksta? Cheers, CWC (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does "resource hog" redirect here? A resource hog is a program that uses a lot of resources -- perhaps even by design, in order to complete an intensive task -- which is a different concept than software bloat. -- Mikeblas 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Some business people believe the only way to keep a customer using their product is to continually sprinkle it with new nonsense features that slow it down and degrade it. Usually the initial product is already badly engineered, so this is analogous to sprinkling glitter on dogs poo. It's still poo no matter how much glitter (features) you sprinkle on it.
It's unnecessary and disruptive to tag all those paragraphs with the "citation needed" tag. Those facts are pretty obvious and/or widely known.
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)
Shouldwe make list of bloated software? it citation can be based on forums or news. 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced a removed {{ fact}} 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)
I've added a {{ synthesis}} 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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Baerbeisser ( talk) 11:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
A good example is Adobe's Acrobat Reader citation needed; 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)
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)
Starting with Windows 7, the minimum hardware requirements for 64-bit Windows is now greater than the 32-bit version.
From the Software bloat page, I added this information:
The minimum hardware requirements for 64-bit versions of Windows 7 are 2GB RAM and 20GB hard disk space, compared to 1GB RAM and 16GB hard disk space required for 32-bit versions of Windows 7.
The table in the "Examples" section only shows 32-bit versions. Why does the 64-bit version of Windows 7 require double the amount of RAM and 4GB extra hard disk space just for being 64-bit? Should this really be added to the table in the "Examples" section, making it clear it's the 64-bit version of Windows 7?
TurboForce (
talk) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Dear folks,
I agree that many of the examples here are subjective. How do we know that a software is bloated if there's no counter-example?
I'd suggest collecting examples of comparisons, where the same functionality is done by two programmes that are very different in size/speed/memory usage etc. That would be a clear show of bloatware.
Of course it's almost impossible to find to software programs doing exactly the same functions, but we'd have to resort to those that have high enough similarity, especially with functions that are used most frequently. (Whatever some guys wrote on the Firefox example, if a function is used by say <1% of users, it's not so important to have everyone download and run it.)
The comparisons would have to include some numerical data (even if no two installations are the same), such as installer size, installed program size, memory consumption, loading time etc.
Hoemaco ( talk) 12:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
To start, I'll list Adobe Reader versus Foxit Reader. Both basically do the same: read and print PDF files. (Ok, I'm not aware of true differences, but I'd consider that any differences are used by the minority of users, considering myself an average user of pdf's). Adobe Reader installed size for me was at least 80..100MB (now I defy myself not giving exact data, but having been fed up by adobe I deleted it so long time ago - maybe a current user can give exact numbers). Also, it had a noticeable loading time (at least 2 seconds) and pdf files were often "lagging" when scrolled.
In comparison, Foxit reader installed is 8.2MB for me now. It loads faster (ok, subjective, hard to measure) and no lags in scrolling. (Oh and btw you can download a free -though watermarking- pdf converter for it). I'd consider this a perfect example of bloatware. Someone told me that this has to do with a certain programming style, something like they always "patch" the old software and stuff just "accumulates" instead of re-writing the whole from scratch. Sorry, though I did study programming, have not heard of such techniques - though understandably, as our teacher would rather advise us against this. But I can quite imagine this - hardware IS cheaper than man-hours for a *real* programmer.
Hoemaco (
talk) 12:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Another example, though not a real comparison. I bought a Fuji digital camera and installed its software (my card reader didn't know sdhc and the camera doesn't work in usb storage mode). The software for downloading the pics is huge (sorry, I'll have to log in another computer to find it, don't remember the exact number, will update the post later), and it's very slow, it took at least half an hour to download photos which would have taken a few minutes at most with a normal usb operation - which it does since I bought a new card reader. So the comparison here is not with another software, but with simply reading the card with a card reader. But the functionality is pretty much the same. (Well, not exactly, as with the card reader it's waay easier and everything goes where I want and only what I want happens. Also the software might include some basic editing programme but that could also be made in a few MB instead of hundreds.) I'll try to find out the software name and size. Hoemaco ( talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Bloatware 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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Software bloat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)