Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: RaZoR1394 on 29 March 2006, 22:31
-
hype7 (http://ltemptyskiesgtltatgtltmac.comgt/) writes "The New York Times is running an article on why they think Windows is so slow (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html?ex=1301115600&en=d0c02cd75d5822fb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). They boil it down to one key factor - legacy support - and they hold up Apple as an example of a company willing to make hard decisions around legacy support in order to provide a better product. From the article: 'Windows is now so big and onerous because of the size of its code base, the size of its ecosystem and its insistence on compatibility with the legacy hardware and software, that it just slows everything down ... That's why a company like Apple has such an easier time of innovation.'"
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/28/0912246
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html?ex=1301115600&en=d0c02cd75d5822fb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[/i]
-
No, the real truth is anti-virus software running in the background, if you disable it then the performance is acceptable.
-
No ... the untruth is that Window$ is BULLSHIT !!! The only way to fix it is to destroy it :D
-
I norice a 0.3% performence difference between anti virus running and not running, then again I don't use Norton.
-
Probably not if you're running some fuck off dual core 3.2GHz 1GB of RAM box but it does make a difference on my pusy 1.8GHz 256MB machine.
-
Probably not if you're running some fuck off dual core 3.2GHz 1GB of RAM box but it does make a difference on my pusy 1.8GHz 256MB machine.
Im runing a 1.8 A64 with 1GB ram.
my anti-virus only uses about 5-6MB,10MB max ram just sitting there in the background. Im using Avast
-
Reading the Fine Article reveals that in this context "Slow" means "slow to release." The article has nothing to do with the operation of the computer.
-
Don't you just hate it when titles don't quite tell what it's about. Especially since most people quit reading after a few incredibly boring and meaningless sentences ... a fine article indeed.
-
Reading the Fine Article reveals that in this context "Slow" means "slow to release." The article has nothing to do with the operation of the computer.
Bingo. I suspected this right away, because - gasp! - Windows isn't that slow at all. At least not any currently released version; we'll have to see next year.
-
Windows of the box is not slow.
But once you've got a anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/drivers/other software that doesn't come out of the box installed ... it chokes up. especially at booting when its trying to access 40 different places on the hard drive simultaneously. I'm pretty sure some other security updates add bloat here and there.
the original install of win2000 on my laptop used 45mb of memory from a clean boot. DSL uses 30mb. by the time I had the drivers installed and DX8.1 it was at 65mb. I have disabled all the ports and just use DSL really. But 2000 really is nippy.
no linux distro will ever compare to 95 in speed and I'm pretty sure XP boots faster than Vector Linux SOHO.
-
Use initng (http://initng.thinktux.net/) if you're concerned about how fast a GNU/Linux system boots up.
More distros should really start using it.
-
your "slow pusy" rig ???
mine is even worse!
460 mhz
128 mb sdram
with a 30 gb hdd
and a Nvidia Geforce MX 100/200
and yes my sys boots prety faster
it is not the os it is the Setings !@
it is said in the god damn articles on the main site !!!
what do u complain when you destroyed a perfectly good system
by puting an XP shit on it !
-
Use initng (http://initng.thinktux.net/) if you're concerned about how fast a GNU/Linux system boots up.
More distros should really start using it.
I'm not aware of a single distro that uses it right now...
-
Use initng (http://initng.thinktux.net/) if you're concerned about how fast a GNU/Linux system boots up.
More distros should really start using it.
Is that related to the projects to use makefiles for the init procedures? I read about those... lightning fast.
Have you used it PiratePenguin?
-
Is it compatible with Ubuntu?
-
I tried it on FC5 on my laptop ... it's like driving a McLaren F1 into brick wall. Tons of fatal errors ... ending in "Failed to load X-Server"
-
I'm not aware of a single distro that uses it right now...
Foresight (http://www.foresightlinux.org/)'s the only distro I know of that uses it. I like what the Foresight guys are doing (conary (http://wiki.rpath.com/) for software management, all the latest GNOME stuff, brilliant mono programs beagle and f-spot, hal and avahi... Damn I really must get using it (even though I tend not to like newbie-stuff)).
Is that related to the projects to use makefiles for the init procedures? I read about those... lightning fast.
Hm, makefiles, that sounds like a cool idea. initng doesn't use makefiles, here's a sample config file for starting/stopping samba:
service daemon/samba/smbd {
need = system/initial system/mountroot virtual/networking
daemon = /usr/sbin/smbd
daemon_args = -F
}
service daemon/samba/nmbd {
need = system/initial system/mountroot virtual/networking
daemon = /usr/sbin/nmbd
daemon_args = -F
}
service daemon/samba {
also_stop = daemon/samba/smbd daemon/samba/nmbd
need = daemon/samba/smbd daemon/samba/nmbd
}Using makefiles would be cool. Mightn't make it faster (they're the same kinda idea), but it'd be cool.
Have you used it PiratePenguin?
Yup.I don't think boot-speed is all that important. But any GNU/Linux user that does can just optimize their init scripts or use initng (I use initng myself. I just decided to try it and now I couldn't be fucked changing it (nothing wrong with the way it is). It boots in about the same time as the usual sysvinit (six seconds when I last compared (which was before I had much stuff starting at boot)) because I start so little stuff at boot.
Still using it. Version 0.3.3. They're up to 0.6.0 now so I'll install that, set it up to start apache, mysql and everything else I want (something I intended on doing around now anyhow) and then try the same stuff with the old init (which I kept), and report back.
I tried it on FC5 on my laptop ... it's like driving a McLaren F1 into brick wall. Tons of fatal errors ... ending in "Failed to load X-Server"
I'm not too surprised. You'd need to configure the thing... Like the file they distribute for starting xdm (the X display manager) loads it from /usr/bin/xdm, xdm could be in /usr/X11R6/bin/ on your system.
I also noticed just starting to compile the new version you can configure it to have/not to have SELinux support.
Is it compatible with Ubuntu?
Sure. You might need to do some manual configuring though. They've got a page (http://initng.thinktux.net/wiki/Install_Debian_Ubuntu) about installing on Debian/Ubuntu. Doesn't look increadibly reliable, but it's a starting place.
-
Feckit I couldn't be arsed telling it how to start apache and friends so I get lodsa warnings at boot up. The kernel takes about 5 seconds to boot and then after another 5 or so KDM starts loading up and takes about 15 seconds to finish.
Beats waiting 10 seconds for KDM to start loading up...
KDM is a slow bastard... Must start using XDM.