All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
MS Anti-Spyware: Norton Antivirus is a trojan!
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---To be honest I haven't seen any objective evidence to support this. I've also been doing some research into the NT kernel recently and I've discovered that it kicks arse in so many ways, (Dave Cutler is a fucking genius). I don't think the kernel (hence the memory management) is the bad part of Windows, it's the shit that surrounds is that causes most of the problems and anti-virus is probably top of the list, well second to the malware it so pathetically tries to protect you against.
--- End quote ---
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107975&postcount=52
--- Quote ---
That's true the Windows Desktop is shit, I actually prefer Xfce - it's an excellent compromise between resourse usage and features.
--- End quote ---
You'd almost think with my 256MB RAM I'd be running something like XFCE, but GNOME runs brilliantly. I haven't notice any performance difference since switching from XFCE to GNOME (even though I know it's there).
davidnix71:
Is the desktop shell integration in Windows the flaw that allows a "Shatter" attack to succeed? I had an ME box that I ran IERadicator on (the version that breaks the desktop shell integration). A lot of programs had to be replaced after that because they were making hard calls to IE and would no longer work.
BUT, after that the OS actually became stable and quiet, kind of like Win2000. I also deleted WinMgmt.exe and that really helped, too.
Win98SE is still useful, we have boxes at work running it. XP has so many network services that it will crash when hit by a bug, but 98 will at least function. I use Virtual 98 and TMPGEnc Plus on my eMac for video recoding. Virtual XP would be too slow.
And yeah, Norton sucks big time, it's a resource hog.
H_TeXMeX_H:
My computer never runs out, or even comes close to running out of ram while running Linux (Stentz with GNOME desktop). The most it ever uses is about 40% of total ram, or about 400 MB (under heavy gaming conditions) :D ... I suppose that doesn't mean much to someone with 256 MB of RAM. Hey, at least it doesn't use 700 - 800 MB like XP ! :eek:
piratePenguin:
I don't care about the numbers - I can do more, faster, on this computer than anyone else with 256MB RAM could dream of doing on Windows. proof
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107975&postcount=52
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I don't care about the numbers - I can do more, faster, on this computer than anyone else with 256MB RAM could dream of doing on Windows. proof
--- End quote ---
That's just someone's personal experiance, I rest my case, I have yet to see an objective well-reasoned argument against Windows's memory management. Just the fact that my work's computer is still usable despite having only 256MB of RAM and a big memory resident anti-virus program running is enough proof to me that it isn't as bad as you say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version