Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:43 UTC
Windows Microsft has made hard statements about perfomance improvements in Longhorn. They claim that applications will load 15% faster than in XP, while boot time is decreased by 50%. They also claimed that Longhorn will be able to wake up from sleep in 2 seconds. Users should also expect half as many reboots during patching. Time to dust of those trustworthy stopwatches.
Order by: Score:
hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

on the same hardware?

Reply Score: 5

RE: hmm
by CrimsonScythe on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:47 UTC in reply to "hmm"
CrimsonScythe Member since:
2005-07-10

on the same hardware?

Yes, on the same Microsoft Marketing Hardware...

Reply Score: 1

We'll see...
by orestes on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:58 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's incredibly easy to sit there and prattle on about improvements to your software before it's released. It's another thing entirely to deliver.

Reply Score: 2

RE: We'll see...
by Rodrigo on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:23 UTC in reply to "We'll see..."
Rodrigo Member since:
2005-07-06

It's incredibly easy to sit there and prattle on about improvements to your software before it's released. It's another thing entirely to deliver.

So true. You can always guess the date and time MS releases one of these pieces of information about Longhorn just to keep people and sites talking about it, but at the end what really matters is the final product.

As one famously said here at OSNews, "stop talking and show me the product".

Reply Score: 2

RE: We'll see...
by deathshadow on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:46 UTC in reply to "We'll see..."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> It's incredibly easy to sit there and prattle on about improvements to your software before it's released. It's another thing entirely to deliver.

It's also very easy to sit there and bash something you've never seen or used.

I have no love for M$, but given the quantum leap XP was over it's predecessors, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt...

Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype), available applications, ease of hardware changes, and cost. Some hit one, or the other, but not all four.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: We'll see...
by jbauer on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: We'll see..."
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

I have no love for M$, but given the quantum leap XP was over it's predecessors, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt...

That was not that hard, considering the quality of its predecessors... By the way, windows XP was what win95 should have been, and they told it would be.

Yeah, I'm running short of faith here. Why should I trust them this time?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: We'll see...
by orestes on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: We'll see..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

It's also very easy to sit there and bash something you've never seen or used.

You're right, it would be very easy to sit here all day and kick MS in the teeth. But, to my knowledge, I wasn't bashing anyone with that observation.

I have no love for M$, but given the quantum leap XP was over it's predecessors, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt...

Quantum leap over its predecessors? Maybe if you pretend Windows 2000 never existed. Otherwise it's nothing more than a point release with a different theme.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: We'll see...
by Ronald Vos on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We'll see..."
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but XP was marketted at the home users (2000 wasn't marketed towards the home users), so XP definitely was a huge milestone. I consider it one of the sweetest victories by FOSS, that MS felt compelled to actually deliver something semi-usable. Given the increased competition on the desktop market, Longhorn better be good ;)
(though I get the feeling they're fumbling because of the pressure)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: We'll see...
by altair on Wed 20th Jul 2005 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We'll see..."
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

Quantum leap over its predecessors? Maybe if you pretend Windows 2000 never existed. Otherwise it's nothing more than a point release with a different theme.

Windows 2000 doesn't have Remote Desktop. That is a major addition that beats anything else out there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: We'll see...
by zlynx on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE: We'll see..."
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype)

I use Gentoo Linux and Gnome on LCDs with subpixel antialiasing and the Bitstream Vera fonts. The fonts look wonderful. When I went to use Windows XP for playing Half-Life 2, I was amazed at how bad the Windows Cleartype fonts looked in comparison. I was also amazed at how badly Windows handles a 150 DPI screen (1920x1200 laptop), while Gnome applications scale without a problem.

So in summary, bad fonts are one problem the Linux alternatives don't have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: We'll see... @zlynx
by deathshadow on Wed 20th Jul 2005 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We'll see..."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> So in summary, bad fonts are one problem the Linux alternatives don't have.

Even when you crank it up to do that though, it has a MAJOR problem with Kerning. Sure, each character is well formed, but if the spacing between characters is all over the place it kinda defeats the point.

Good example is to open up an editor and type the word "spacing" or "difficult", then go to the beginning of the line and start adding spaces...

and watch the character kerning jump all over creation.

I don't know what a "diffic ult" or "spacin g" is, apart from BAD kerning.

And to my eyes Cleartype looks superior to freetype with subpixel aliasing... ASSUMING you use the cleartype tuner.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: We'll see... @zlynx
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: We'll see... @zlynx"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Even when you crank it up to do that though, it has a MAJOR problem with Kerning. Sure, each character is well formed, but if the spacing between characters is all over the place it kinda defeats the point.

Good example is to open up an editor and type the word "spacing" or "difficult", then go to the beginning of the line and start adding spaces...


Not on my system it doesn't. Works perfectly. In fact, I've not seem that happen on any modern Linux system.

And to my eyes Cleartype looks superior to freetype with subpixel aliasing... ASSUMING you use the cleartype tuner.

And I find the exact opposite to be true. ClearType produces fonts that are blurry, ill-defined, and have horrible colour bleeding. Freetype (assuming you have it configured properly) produces far more legible text on my system.

Could be a difference in the screen. I've seen laptops where Cleartype simply looks blurry, but I've seen others where it looks worse than it does on a CRT (and no, it wasn't configured incorrectly - it simply could not be made to work acceptably).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: We'll see...
by abraxas on Wed 20th Jul 2005 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE: We'll see..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

It's also very easy to sit there and bash something you've never seen or used.

It's also impossible to defend something that you have never used or seen because it does not exist yet (in anything other than pre-beta form).

I have no love for M$, but given the quantum leap XP was over it's predecessors, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt...

Quantum leap? XP is nothing more than 2000 with a few added features, basically a point release. 2000 is an evolution of NT. Where exactly is the quantum leap you speak of? The same basic OS has been around for 10 years.

Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype)

Whoa, slow down. Have you ever used Linux? I can never believe when people continue to bitch about fonts in Linux. There is nothing wrong with the fonts in Linux anymore. In fact I can never quite get the fonts in Windows to look as good as the ones in Linux, so please stop using an argument that has been dead for years now.

available applications,

Like what? Games? Most people don't care about games. If there is something else you are sorely missing then why don't you name it specifically?

ease of hardware changes

Changing hardware is actually easier. Drivers are really the only thing you have to worry about and they are built into the Linux kernel. You shouldn't have to touch a thing. With Windows on the other hand you have to install the drivers off of a CD or from the internet.

and cost

This one just makes me laugh. I can't possibley see how $85 is less than $0.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: We'll see...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We'll see..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Whoa, slow down. Have you ever used Linux? I can never believe when people continue to bitch about fonts in Linux. There is nothing wrong with the fonts in Linux anymore. In fact I can never quite get the fonts in Windows to look as good as the ones in Linux, so please stop using an argument that has been dead for years now."

Very well said

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: We'll see...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We'll see..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Like what? Games? Most people don't care about games. If there is something else you are sorely missing then why don't you name it specifically?"

Ok, here are the apps I use on a regular basis that are available only for Windows: Trillian (yeah I know there are others available for Linux but they suck in comparison), iTunes, Office (sorry, Open Office sucks in comparison), OneNote, Canon Photo software for importing /managing my photos from my digital camera, SnagIt, Feed Demon, MS SQL Server, Expensable desktop client, Siebel client, Dreamweaver.

I also run Oracle, which is available on Linux... however Oracle is damn near impossible to install on Linux (which is Oracle's fault, but still...)

It would be impossible for me to switch to Linux at work given my need to run Expensable, Siebel, SQL Server and Dreamweaver. At home I would have to sacrifice iTunes and the nice photo software I have.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: We'll see...
by abraxas on Mon 25th Jul 2005 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: We'll see..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Ok, here are the apps I use on a regular basis that are available only for Windows: Trillian

Gaim

iTunes

Rhythmbox, Amarok

Office

OpenOffice

OneNote

Useless (that's not a program name, Onenote is just useless)

Canon Photo software for importing /managing my photos from my digital camera

GPhoto

SnagIt

Gimp

Feed Demon

Firefox

MS SQL Server

MySQL

Expensable

It has a we client also

Siebel client

OpenOffice

Dreamweaver

Nvu

It would be impossible for me to switch to Linux at work given my need to run Expensable, Siebel, SQL Server and Dreamweaver. At home I would have to sacrifice iTunes and the nice photo software I have.

It wouldn't be even close to impossible for you to switch. The only problem is that you are not willing to try new software. I create database driven websites with just Bluefish, MySQL, and NCFTP. You can use OpenOffice as a database client if need be, but I beleive there are other ones out there.

Reply Score: 1

pravda
Member since:
2005-07-06

Like Windows XP, I would bet that all the "performance" will degrade over time.

After you install a few applications... a few new drivers... maybe upgrade your hardware after install... then Windows gets very very slow. This is true for pretty much every version of Windows. And the more you install/uninstall, the more likely you are to corrupt your registry or do something else that mandates paving the machine.

If you look at an XP system that has had a bunch of apps installed and has not been paved in a while, then the boot times are often pathetic. Even with 15K U320 SCSI drives. A 50% decrease in boot times would be a big change, but also would still be a long time.

Longhorn must deliver on the empty promises of .NET. For example, .NET installs get corrupted easily, returning funny errors like 2908 when you try and install a new .NET app. Microsoft's tech bulletin says to try and uncorrupt your registry and if that fails... pave the machine.

It will be interesting to see Longhorn when it finally ships. I do hope the best for it, but am realistic that it will take 2-3 more years past ship to get it all working well.

Reply Score: 5

Paving?
by gpierce on Tue 19th Jul 2005 22:49 UTC in reply to "This all will be true for the first 15 minutes"
gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

By paving, you mean re-install? I agree that the tendency for Windows's performance to degrade does seem to correlate with the number of installs and uninstalls. My new laptop runs faster than my older desktop which is a dual processor Xeon with WinXP! I have never understood and still don't understand why this happens.

I do think that the anti-virus and anti-spamware software produce a big performance hit. Processes are always waiting for clearance from these gatekeepers before they do anything. I just wish MS would implement some of the security features of Linux/UNIX/OS X and do away with the necessity for anti-virus software altogether. Occasionally I read that the NT kernel is derived from the VMS OS. Well, I remember having a VAX/VMS account in my grad school days and I never remember the VAX's being down because of viruses. Of course, the late 80's were more innocent times. I wonder if the same thing happens in Linux. Gnome 2.10 seems to load a little more slowly than earlier versions but I do not have as much experience with Linux.

Anyway, wishing for a happier computing future,
Greg

Reply Score: 1

RE: Paving?
by Ronald Vos on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:27 UTC in reply to "Paving?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I remember having a VAX/VMS account in my grad school days and I never remember the VAX's being down because of viruses. Of course, the late 80's were more innocent times.

In all fairness, the worst worms to ever hit the internet percentage wise, and that had the biggest debilitating effects on internet use in general, were unix worms in the 80s. All 3-5 of them of course. But the effects of having an OS monoculture became glaringly obvious.

Reply Score: 3

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

With any OS the performance will be affected by other factors whether third party software or hardware not meeting developers minimum system requirements. A developer whether Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat, Apple, etc cannot be expected to take into account all issues that may arise with third party software. That responsibility is basically on the third party software developer to ensure their software will not significantly impact the OS it's running on. Also part of the responsibility is on the end user to ensure they don't have services running that they don't immediately need to use. With Linux distributions I've seen users who complaine about slow systems even though the reality is they decided to install multiple applications during the installation or after that they don't really use. Instead users should streamline their systems by installing only applications that they need so as to offer the best over all performance.

Reply Score: 1

v hmmm totally sceptical here...
by raver31 on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:00 UTC
RE: hmmm totally sceptical here...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:18 UTC in reply to "hmmm totally sceptical here..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

If they reduce the number of reboots required for their own system updates, they will be correct. I don't think they were talking about 3rd-party updates

Reply Score: 0

What PC specs are we talking about?
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Those statements by Microsoft are meaningless without some indication of the hardware specs for Longhorn. Does Microsoft really mean that Longhorn will be quicker than XP on equivalent hardware? And what will these hardware specs be? Are they talking about current machines? Who knows what PCs will be like in 2006 - other than the fact that they'll be much faster than today.

Reply Score: 5

Not until I see it.
by jbauer on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:10 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, yeah... I'll believe it when I see it. And windows 95 was supposed to be the last systen not using NT. Windows 98 and Windows Millennium came after that before they finally made good on their promise with XP.

Reply Score: 1

It is totally possible
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Cut in half boot time is totally possible, depending what you consider 100%. My Win XP SP 2 work PC boots to the login dialog in 20 seconds or so. It is hooked to a network but the network is not set up to do authentication or anything centralized. So I bet they will never take my setup as a measure since is is very common to see windows take a lot more to boot in other circumstances.
About application startup, they must be talking about apps using the windows API and DLLs. Anyway 15 % is not measurable when word, excel or even open office take 2,3 and 10 seconds resp.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It is totally possible
by Roguelazer on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "It is totally possible"
Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

Yet here it's more like 4 minutes to the login screen. It has been long since the fresh install of XP, got longer when SP1, then SP2 were added. Office never started in under a minute. The whole thing just sucks. :/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It is totally possible
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: It is totally possible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Learn howto maintain your OS before prattling such figures. XP is as fast for me today as the day I installed it, no, actually faster as SP2 gave us a more recently compiled kernel optimised more for modern architectures.

Ok, it suchs that Windows needs hand holding but it is easy to keep it chugging along very quick if you know anything about it. Try disabling crap software loadups at boot time and other cruft that might be installed as a part of most commercial software nowdays. Worst purps of this are Dell, Compact and HP who have a load of shit loading with the OS that is totally not needed. I call it verndor added crapware.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: It is totally possible
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: It is totally possible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

With those times it sounds like you don't have DMA enabled for some reason. This would slow down your machine by a lot. Maybe try enabling DMA in Device Manager?

Reply Score: 0

It's fast as it is,,,
by ronaldst on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:14 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

with Windows XP. Imagine with Longhorn!

I can't wait for the beta. Waiting sucks. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

thats strange. my current xp installation is over 2 years old and is used dayly. also in the meantime i have installed and uninstalled lots of software, drivers and even changed the mainboard (it works if you know how to do it) and graphics card, still no part of my install seems to be corrupted or slower. boot time increased, but by a hardly noticeble amount.

maybe you just dont know what you do?

Reply Score: 2

jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

You'll just feel the difference when you reinstall all again ;)

Reply Score: 1

pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

thats strange. my current xp installation is over 2 years old and is used dayly. also in the meantime i have installed and uninstalled lots of software, drivers and even changed the mainboard (it works if you know how to do it) and graphics card, still no part of my install seems to be corrupted or slower. boot time increased, but by a hardly noticeble amount.

maybe you just dont know what you do?


I've used Windows since 3.0, and I used to claim I knew Windows, but not anymore. The complexity of modern Windows is beyond me. There are too many moving parts.

Across many machines and many corporations, it is a well-documented fact that adding software, adding/changing drivers, and making hardware changes will gradually (or spontaneously) cause Windows to deteriorate.

I've never had an XP installation go more than about 2 years before the machine was so screwed up it needed to be paved. So considering your time frame, I'd make sure you have an image backup ready to restore from ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Nate Member since:
2005-07-20

I believe you, but not everyone is so fortunate. I've repaved numerous systems for work and for friends/family and one thing you often hear after re-installing Windows is "wow, my computer is so much faster now!"

Something is slowing down their PC, be it spyware, disk fragmentation, registry cruft, or just plain bad design. I have not had the same problem with Macs. They don't seem to slow down over time, or at least it is not nearly as noticeable.

Reply Score: 1

MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

maybe you just dont know what you do?
I amways had that problems with windows, and so do about all of my computer savvy friends (including people who fix PCs for a living)

Maybe I don't know what I do. Maybe one should be very careful when using windows and maintaining a windows box, which I am not (I have better things to do with my time than continuously cleanup and tweak my system).

Thing is, I never had performance degrading overtime problems with linux, and I don't spend my time taking care of my linux system either, which I think is as it should be - an operating system isn't supposed to get in your way and always need maintenance and cleanup to keep working properly.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

maybe your full of shit?

Reply Score: 0

Re: It's fast as it is,,,
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Imagine with Longhorn!

You'll have to.

Reply Score: 3

re: What PC specs are we talking about?
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

the preview version of longhorn which they gave away at the developer meeting runs very fluid on a 800MHz p3 with 512MB ram. but i can't say anything about the speed of the new 3d accelerated surface, since our testing mashine had no 3d acceleration (an antique matrox graphics card) and i have heard that version wasn't including the winfx anyway.

keep in mind though that this might change when features are added.

Reply Score: 0

v Yeah right...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

that might be true, but honestly, it boots in halv the time of my debian installation and programms start a couple of times faster. so i can realy se no point in whining about the tiny possible bit of lost in speed that comes to xp with the years when it is still so much faster than any equal powerfull os for my hardware.
and i'm not a windows zealot... on my laptop i only have mepis linux, which is good enough as a pure workstation. but i expect a little bit more from my home desktop...

Reply Score: 0

This is supposed to be a plus:
by ma_d on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:44 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

>"It[Longhorn] will lower security, deployment,
>administration and support costs" in a way that hasn't
>been seen since the company delivered Windows 95 ten
>years ago.

If I were a Microsoft Windows developer, I'd take that as an insult!

Reply Score: 2

Seen this before...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is from the same people who claimed that Windows 95 would run OK on a 386 with 4 mb or ram, and that the NTF system would never require a defrag.

Let's just say I'm not exactly brimming with confidence on these claims ;)

Reply Score: 1

meh
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They just put more stuff to load after GUI

Reply Score: 2

v with how many percent of memory upgrade?
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC
What?
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My WinXP machine at work takes 12 seconds to startup, and a fraction of a second to open word, but approx. 2 minutes to shutdown. Microsoft I ask you: How much slower will the shutdown time be?

PS: I switched to Linux approx. 15 months ago on my home pc.

Reply Score: 0

good
by JrezIN on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:37 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

Looks good. Too bad these numbers doesn't reflect the today's hardware improvements, but still good news.

IMHO, the more interesting part is:
"Beta 2 isn't slated until some time in the first half of 2006, however. Beta 2 will be the first wide-scale Longhorn beta release to feature the new Aero user interface."

...just imagining how different Aero will be from current placeholder theme... the present 'placeholder' has some good interface improvements already (like the way the folder icon shows the folder's content for example), and MS will probably hold other improvements until Aero's debut.

Reply Score: 1

50% faster
by DonQ on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:38 UTC
DonQ
Member since:
2005-06-29

Some claims from article:

* launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
* boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently
* reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent


If you look the latest, then actually 50% gain on same hardware can be possible. 50% less system images means much less disk access at startup time and less disk access while loading applications - they're using system libs extensively.

From other side (depend on configuration), much of the boot time is wasted to initialization various hardware. If some mouse takes 5 seconds to initialize, then nothing helps - unless they just show deskop before it's even known, does mouse work or not. (Well, maybe they already are doing so with mouse; unfortunately there's other hardware, what cannot be deferred this way so easily).

Like what I'm noticed - my XP in VirtualPC boots up much faster than the real one. Of course there are no noticeable timeouts for virtual hardware initialization, so is VPC network emulator (DHCP server) faster.

But let's wait and see. I won't buy new hardware for Longhorn anyway:)

Reply Score: 1

RE: 50% faster
by n4cer on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:26 UTC in reply to "50% faster"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

50% less system images does not refer to disk access. It refers to disk images made for corporate and OEM rollout. Longhorn will allow more flexibility in creating and maintaining system images. New imaages won't be required for various localizations, images can be directly updated and have patches integrated, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 50% faster
by Calroth on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:32 UTC in reply to "50% faster"
Calroth Member since:
2005-07-07

If you look the latest, then actually 50% gain on same hardware can be possible. 50% less system images means much less disk access at startup time and less disk access while loading applications - they're using system libs extensively.

Actually, I'll bet that at least some of that 50% comes from what Mac OS X has been doing for some time (I think) and what Linux distributions have started exploring:

Starting services and apps in parallel, rather than one at a time.

Reply Score: 1

v Linux is great in the server closet
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 22:04 UTC
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

Wordperfect will continue to dominate word processing field for decades to come...

oops....

It's too obvious you are just a bad attempt at a troll.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Longhorn, Avalon, and XAML will continue to dominate the desktop for decades to come and there is nothing that communist zealots can do about it."

If you are a typical M$!t zealot, Longhorn and co. are already in the grave.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

they say you need a 3GHz CPU at LEAST and then tell that they deliver more performance than XP which runs just fine on 1GHz CPUs?

Reply Score: 0

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

3GHz CPUs are not required for Longhorn. ACPI BIOSes (no APM) will be a likely requirement however (not a big deal these days). At the lowest end, Longhorn will support some classes of Pentium III/K6-2 on notebook computers.

Reply Score: 1

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Correction on the K6-2 Mobile. Not supported. The Mobile P3 w/ Speedstep is supported.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: We'll see...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---


Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype), available applications, ease of hardware changes, and cost. Some hit one, or the other, but not all four.


TRUE THAT!!! I can not stand Linux/BSD/any other os JUST BECAUSE OF THIS FACT!!! otherwise I'd LOVE to use linux.

I whish free type would be a little more cutting edge.

</rant>

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: We'll see...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---


Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype), available applications, ease of hardware changes, and cost. Some hit one, or the other, but not all four.


TRUE THAT!!! I can not stand Linux/BSD/any other os JUST BECAUSE OF THIS FACT!!! otherwise I'd LOVE to use linux.

I whish free type would be a little more cutting edge.

</rant>

Reply Score: 0

v Linux has already failed on the desktop
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 23:34 UTC
Anonymous Member since:
---

Linux will always have a shot because it's free. End of story!

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Why don't you post as a registered user? I suppose you are too much of a coward to do that.
As to linux you are either totally clueless or in bad faith or both.

Reply Score: 1

But...
by Bobmeister on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:27 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

But Windows is so Boring! Wait another year? Geez....

Reply Score: 1

Linux too
by Bobmeister on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:52 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux doesn't slow down either...but on some systems with high-load gnome or kde, it's already a little slow. Lightning fast with XFCE or the command-line...but over time it seems to run the same and never slow down...I have seen Windows slow down, but the post by Nate is important in that it can be a lot of different things and that it's hard to know what is causing it.

Reply Score: 0

It is possible!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft are correct - read the small print.

You can easily/theoretically get a 50% reduction in boot time of Longhorn, all you need is a computer that is around 6 to 8 times faster.

Reply Score: 0

speed... but...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

However fast it may be does not worry me. I worry more about the stability and security. Windows has generally been incredibly less stable than Linux. What I would like to see is a migration to the unix base. I would like to see Microsoft do as Macintosh did by switching to a unix based system with and emulator for all of the old applications. This would allow programmers more freedom. They could write POSIX compliant software. This would mean users from Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, BSD, and Solaris could be using the same software... what a beautiful idea, no?

Reply Score: 1

RE: speed... but...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:38 UTC in reply to "speed... but..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

That would be great and could win over the minds of almost every advanced user!

But it will never happen, I am afraid: they are to greedy, conservative and stupid to do something like that.

Reply Score: 1

My SuSE Pet Peeves
by RGCook on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:35 UTC
RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

The reports hit home for me and address my two biggest pet peeves with SuSE 9.3:

1. Boot time - The time it takes to boot SuSE 9.3 is unacceptable and borderline ridiculous..

2. Sleep/wake performance - It finally works on my Inspiron 600 but my goodness is it awkward and slow. It's more akin to hibernation than suspend as far as I can tell. I avoid it

Microsoft is really focusing on the things that make the computing experience transparent and fun. Meanwhile, I am getting old watching Linux boot. Since I still have to deal in a dual boot situation, this really makes me avoid Linux sometimes, just because I can boot XP in about 20 seconds and it takes SuSE more like a minute.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:50 UTC in reply to "My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Just use another distribution. It is very easy to find a faster one (and better from many points of view as well)
SUSE is (in)famous for being extremely slow, and not just when booting.

Nothing short of a complete redesign will convince me to use SUSE ever again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by RGCook on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Thanks for your response! Can you give me a suggestion? I was thinking the new Mandriva 2006 beta looks cool but all I know is SuSE and Yast.

Once it is up and running, it is great. But my only computer is a laptop and I am on the run a bit.

I am definately a KDE guy. Tried Ubuntu and hated Gnome!

Thanks,

Bob

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

You are welcome ;)
Indeed, I believe that Mandriva is now a much better choice than SUSE.
Another great favourite of mine is Kanotix: free, complete, great support, easy to use thanks to Kano's scripts and the wiki. Great laptop support as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

You made my day. You made me laugh so hard...thank you mate. If Linux is slow or doesn't work, its either your mistake or its wrong distribution...excuses and more excuses == Linux

Try FreeBSD...it boots and shuts down in 20% time of Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Try FreeBSD...it boots and shuts down in 20% time of Linux."

Sure, highly recommended for a new user...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

Use PC-BSD

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea, it's a great OS too; once you install the gnu utilities and recompile your kernel to work with your ext3 disks ;) .
I must say they have the easiest kernel recompiles and installs; but the fact that you have to do it more often because of the lack of modules...

It does boot faster, probably saves you a solid 25% of the boot time by being a big c program instead of shell scripts: Of course it's probably 5 times faster than Mandrake, but Mandrake's never been known for quick boots.

There's actually a lot of truth to your sarcastic statement. The linux kernel is so configurable, usually problems with it are with the configuration being wrong.

But you're too wrapped up in your "superior" bsd habits to accept the idea of linux and bsd coexisting. I'm just guessing here, based on previous "superior" bsd users I've met. It's one of the things that's always kept me off bsd; aside from the technical issues.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

No i am not a BSD fanatic. My favourite OS is Windows XP for reasons obvious to many and not obvious at all to many others ;)

Now as for BSD, i like it because it has a strict focus and it delivers it well. Even Linus acknowledge that people in BSD are perfectionist. I happens to like them more.

Now as for boot time, i did a fresh install of Redhat 9 and i did an install of FreeBSD, freeBSD on the same machine takes only 20-25% time to boot as compared to Linux and shutdown in BSD is almost instantaneous where as Linux keep spewing tons of stuff like shutting down blah blah...

You may recommend me another distro now but you know how many would i try. I am happy with Redhat 9 for now and no i am not using FreeBSD because it didn't have recent version of some software that i wanted the time i built my machine and I don't usually upgrade too often unless i have to. Its a pain to reinstall a new OS and configure the things all over again...usually at least 1 full day job.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by pythonhacker on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
pythonhacker Member since:
2005-07-07

"Now as for boot time, i did a fresh install of Redhat 9 and i did an install of FreeBSD, freeBSD on the same machine takes only 20-25% time to boot as compared to Linux and shutdown in BSD is almost instantaneous where as Linux keep spewing tons of stuff like shutting down blah blah... "


Have you tried Fedora Core 4? Boots up in 20 sec
flat on my Intel Pentium IV with 256 MB RAM. Shuts down silently, faster than Win 2K with no blah...blah...

When you blanket-blaim "Linux" desktops, make
sure you know what you are talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Try running the same services for a fair test. RedHat starts virtually every service that anyone could ever want including sendmail.
Now, I take it you did it with Fbsd 4.x and not 5.x; as you would want to compare versions from a similar time period.

When you load your fbsd box down as bad as the redhat box is you'll see similar boot times: Or, redhat-config-services and you can remove some services and shave a good quarter of its boot time off.

That said, it's not that much faster. I've used both quite a bit as well, it's twice as fast maaaaaybe when you have tons of extra services for Linux.

It is truly a pain in the neck to install a new OS. Although, I always keep a machine around that I'm content to leave in a non-working state for trying distributions. I recently tried kanotix on it and was pleased to see everything work: This is after FC4 failed to find my synaptics touchpad! I just wanted GCC4!!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Tried Kubuntu? It's Ubuntu with KDE as default desktop environment.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Dark_Knight on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

On every system I've installed SuSE Linux Professional on I've timed faster boot to log-in screen than on identical systems running Windows XP Professional w/SP2 installed. The performance and stability has improved with each release. In your case you should check to see you don't have any errors displayed in the system log or unnecessary services running which can impact performance.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by netpython on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly,besides i have a RAID0+1 configuration (boot raid1,the rest raid0) things run even faster on SuSE (any Linux).Eg: it takes oowrite < 2 sec to to be ready when i click the icon.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 09:49 UTC in reply to "My SuSE Pet Peeves"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, while MS is FOCUSING on making computing transparent and fun, Apple and Mac OS X has already been delivering this for years.

Reply Score: 0

OSX is the only alternative to Windows
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux's inevitable failure on the desktop was a foregone conclusion. People that want Unix on the desktop have moved on to OSX and relegated Linux to the server closet where it does a good job.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Yet another delusional anonymous.
If you you are waiting for a big migration to OSX, you can wait till the end of the world.
People are Not.Going.To.Pay.For.Mac.Hardware.
When are you Mac zealots going to understand that?
A Mac Mini with a couple of badly needed extra features costs here in Europe as much as a PC with double the speed and the features.
Not to mention the thirld world, which is the true battleground at the moment: buying a Mac? ROFLMAO, they don't even know what it is.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Yet another delusional anonymous.
If you you are waiting for a big migration to OSX, you can wait till the end of the world.
People are Not.Going.To.Pay.For.Mac.Hardware."

Facts: People are moving from Windows/Linux to MacOSX and they are paying for Apple hardware. Look at Apple's performance for the past seven quarters.

"When are you Mac zealots going to understand that?
A Mac Mini with a couple of badly needed extra features costs here in Europe as much as a PC with double the speed and the features."

Wake up, people are buying the Mini and not because of its speed.

"Not to mention the thirld world, which is the true battleground at the moment: buying a Mac? ROFLMAO, they don't even know what it is."

Fascinating business model to focus on customers that have no money.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Facts: People are moving from Windows/Linux to MacOSX and they are paying for Apple hardware."

It is not as if a few thousands more users means that Apple is taking the world by storm.
My facts: I have been following personal computers from the very beginning. I have lived in many European countries, especially of course Italy, but also the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. I have met thousands of computer users. I have seen (and briefly used) Macs only twice: in 1984, when the cost of a Mac was about ten good monthly salaries, and many years later my house mates in Brighton used a Mac.
Here in Italy Macs are virtually unknown: some computer shops have never heard of Apple and Mac.

>>"Not to mention the thirld world, which is the true battleground at the moment: buying a Mac? ROFLMAO, they don't even know what it is."

Fascinating business model to focus on customers that have no money<<

And yet Microsoft is extremely keen to retain that market, even if that means millions of pirated copies or selling their software for much less.

Concluding: I am a self confessed geek and I'd like to try and possibly use a Mac OSX: but I'll never accept to be ripped off and pay for hardware twice the price I'd pay for an ordinary PC.

As to ordinary people they know only Windows. It is very easy to introduce them to linux because the cost is 0Eur. And in fact there are quite a few linux users in this 9,000 inhabitants town. If I told people to spend a minimum of 800Eur in order to try a new computer with an unknown OS, I would in no time gain a reputation for being mad. And this is by no means a town with low living standards, just the opposite.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I can only speak of my experience here in the US and I can tell you that the Mac is becoming a very popular alternative to Windows. Next year MacOSX will run on Intel chips so the argument of hardware being half the speed won't hold up. Heck I use an iBook G3/500 daily for work, a laptop by many PC user's standpoint to be useless because the processor is 500MHZ.

Also MS is interested in proliferating Windows, they are NOT interested in third world countries.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Next year MacOSX will run on Intel chips so the argument of hardware being half the speed won't hold up."

OK, but I hope it won't be double the price for the same specs. Next year the comparison will be even more evident.

"Also MS is interested in proliferating Windows, they are NOT interested in third world countries."

Of course so, but they fear the domino effect (it is a small planet after all ;) )

Reply Score: 1

v yeah, right
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:19 UTC
RE: yeah, right
by n4cer on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:31 UTC in reply to "yeah, right"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice troll, As I stated in another thread, there is no Longhorn beta at this moment. As far as the alphas go, they were not slow either.

Reply Score: 1

Re: anonymous penguin
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A Mac Mini with a couple of badly needed extra features costs here in Europe as much as a PC with double the speed and the features.
Not to mention the thirld world, which is the true battleground at the moment: buying a Mac?


Yes, I suppose if you're a 3rd worlder living in a mud hut in europe then I guess you would have to settle for DOS, or a commodre 64, or Linux, or whatever. For the rest of us, we appreciate a Unix with a usable desktop and relegate BSD, Solaris, and Linux (all interchangeable) to the server closet.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: anonymous penguin
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:40 UTC in reply to "Re: anonymous penguin"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Your idiotic sarcasm, typical of a snobbish Mac user doesn't deserve a proper reply.

Even *if* I liked Macs and *if* I wanted to buy one, I'd never do because of the userbase.

And you are very wrong: I could afford one if I wanted to, but I don't like being ripped off.

Reply Score: 0

v Being a happy Linux User?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:47 UTC
distro
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My only problem with Linux is now i'm capable to get everything ( no matter what) up and running on every distro without googling to much it's hard to choose what's going to stay on the box.Boot speed isn't really a concern of mine since i mostly like to use a 0+1 SATA RAID configuration (SuSE boots under 20 sec).Since i like to listen to music being shouted over the net or being broadcast on the cable i don't really need extra i-tunes costs.On AMD64 there is remarkably less performance differences when running Linux ( all boot/run fast) personally i think it's nice to have a lot of applications on a DVD9,preferrably both w32 and x86_64 (why should i buy two separate boxes?).Yeah i think the chemeleon is bound to stay,curious to see what the next version will feel like.

Reply Score: 0

If I were you guys..
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'd treat this article as serious as a humorix one, it's posted by an anti-microsoft site.

Reply Score: 0

RE: We'll See @ Darkshadow
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Especially with the 'alternatives' coming up way short in most arenas I consider important. Font Rendering (Cleartype kicks EVERYTHING else's ass, ESPECIALLY freetype), available applications, ease of hardware changes, and cost. Some hit one, or the other, but not all four.


Let's tackle this one bit at a time, shall we?

Fonts: Yeah, ok, basic freetype is bad, right? Well, try using anti-aliasing and a better font package (urwfonts is one that I like) and you'll probably be pretty happy with it. Also, is it just me, or does ClearType make LCD screens look like crap no matter what settings you use? Personally I get better results out of my system here after adding better fonts than I did with windows installed.


Available applications: Blame developers, or blame your packaging tools. Using the FreeBSD ports selection and pkg_add I haven't really had any software I couldn't find/install very easily, and I have software that works for everything I need to do. Actually it covers most of what I *want* to do also, more so than windows did (at least without spending $600+ on an application or having to install a better command interpreter for scripting). Also, I don't spend time dealing with issues like "ERROR! MSVC6.DLL NOT FOUND!" with a long time following in which I search for the Visual C runtime files in vain, finally getting them from some weird Australian gaming site, but not finding them anywhere on the MS website.

Ease of hardware changes: Hmm, yes, I can see that adding a single line to a module-loading file is a lot harder than having to go through XPs attempts to lock you out of your hardware decisions, having to wait while it installs the hardware without asking me about drivers (it *always* chooses the least functional driver for me), then having to go in and reinstall the driver, click "yes I know it's unsigned" 400 times, having to turn off "signed driver warning" to save myself future headaches, have it ignore my telling it to ignore driver signing, resulting in more "yes I know you jerk" boxes showing up, then having to reboot. Erm, wait, what point were you trying to make again?

Cost: Yes, I can see that needing a semi-new machine is a lot cheaper than being able to pick up an older one at a garage sale for $15 and being able to use it for your daily needs, great argument there.

Cost? Where did that even come from? Linux: Free (unless you count support with companies that sell bloated software anyway), *BSD:Free, Solaris:Free, QNX: Free (non-commercial), BeOS: Free, SkyOS: Damned cheap, Minuet:Free, ReactOS:Free, Ecomstation/OS/2: $70, OSX: Pretty damned cheap, even with the 1-3 upgrades, compared to the "list price" on XP Pro?

I don't see how you even thought that last one was an argument?

Unless you buy all that crap about having to retrain people to use new software, which takes what, a day, maybe two? I mean, it all looks the same anyway. Ok, so, average employee in a company makes, oh, let's call it $20/hr. Ok, so, that's two 8 hour days, which brings the total to... $320? Now, let's compare that to the list price of a copy of Windows XP Pro, right now: MS Recommended price... :::drum roll:::...wow, it's down to $300, ok, so that's cheaper than retraining someone.

Now, let's say you have to upgrade to Longhorn in three years to keep your support good (do you really think they won't try to cancel XP support as soon as possible to force upgrades? They are trying it with 2000, and XP isn't all that much newer.), then buy new computers at 3Ghz+ and at least, say, 768MB of memory to run said longhorn, plus the yearly support fee to microsoft on a per employee basis (not included in this list for simplicity reasons).

What do you think Dell will be charging for a system like that in three years? $900? Ok $900, including the $300 OS, vs $320 to retrain people to use a slightly different office tool.

Which is less? Now we'll ad a multi-thousand dollar server system (Windows 2003 + 25 CALS), plus say 50 employees, which brings us to $48999. Oh wait, let's include the hardware cost on the server, we'll say an even $52000, how's that sound? Wait wait wait, we need to upgrade the server for the new OS to get access to all the new features. Whoops, there goes another $4000, so $56000 then, right? Ok, that's not too bad for a company that size.... especially when you campare it to the cost of retraining everyone to use a very slightly different looking desktop, e-mail software, and office suite that won't ever really need to be replaced... I mean, that's like $16000! Oh wait...

Reply Score: 0

@ma_d
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 07:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I must say they have the easiest kernel recompiles and installs; but the fact that you have to do it more often because of the lack of modules...

Lack of modules? o.O

"ls /boot/kernel |more
accf_data.ko
accf_http.ko
aha.ko
ahc.ko
ahc_eisa.ko
ahc_isa.ko
ahc_pci.ko
ahd.ko
aio.ko
amr.ko
ata.ko
atacard.ko
atadisk.ko
ataisa.ko
atapci.ko
atapicam.ko
atapicd.ko
atapifd.ko
atapist.ko
ataraid.ko
ath_rate.ko
auxio.ko
bridge.ko
....."

It seems like everything possible is built as a module to me? All loadable through "kldload modulenamehere.ko"

I don't know where this "lack of modules" idea comes from, they've been there at least since 4.x... yes, you can turn them off if you don't need them (I tend to, it cuts compile times down to about 10% of the time), but it builds them all by default?

Reply Score: 0

Faster ?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 07:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Normal, from an Athlon 64 to an Athlon 64 X2, you just get 70%/90% speed improvement, provided you don't scam the threads management between the two cores like the current version of Windows do (loss of benefit from the dual core, check the reviews of X2).

Booting time reduced by 50% ? Sure, drives will be faster in 1/2 years, Microsoft knows it because under NDA with HD factories.

Microsoft should try to invest money on optimizing their OS instead to 'serialize' in XML everything they get under the hand. Booting from XML, saving DB in XML, doing anything in XML in time consuming in parsing text files. This is plain stupid. Binary files were made to speed things because close to the UC format (binary numbers ready to be processed).

Kochise

Reply Score: 0

half the reboots?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 08:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What in the world does that mean??

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hi,

I just want to say that the new system for turned down posts is untransparent. Before, you could see *which* posts were turned down and form your own opinion.

While I (with all respect) think that moderating in the past has not always been 100% consistant, at least it was honest in that you could see the modded down posts.

Now there is no way to see them at a glance, since you get the same page with the modded down comments included, but they're very hard to find. I tried displaying all comments and searching for the string '-5', but it seems modded down comments aren't even rated this way!

Reply Score: 1

RE[1]Faster ?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 08:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The AMD X2 CPU's are awsome.

centh00

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Time to dust of those trustworthy stopwatches"

More like time to yawn a little more.

I don't care what M$ "promises" or says anymore. I'd rather wipe with sand paper than use any past, present, or future incarnation of their OS.

Reply Score: 0

PeneSys
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 10:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Grazie a sta...! Sa quale macchina useranno...

Reply Score: 0

RE: PeneSys
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 14:19 UTC in reply to "PeneSys"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hi italian Anonymous,
I don't understand your message; please use another language or italian!

Mi permetto inoltre di segnalarle che quanto ha scritto, presuntamente in italiano, risulta incompresibile.

Non commento la forma al solo fine di non offenderla.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: PeneSys
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE: PeneSys"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sorry!

incompresibile -> incomprensibile

Reply Score: 0

Boot times in Linux not important
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 12:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It doesn't matter how long the boot lasts. More important thing is, how many times you have to reboot. Linux is meant to boot only once. On Windows you have to reboot every now and then. I really don't understand people who shut down their computers, except when facing a storm or other special conditions.

Reply Score: 0

Sure
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 13:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yeah, probably for a fresh install. Just wait untill the machine gets infected with some longhorn spyware.

Reply Score: 0

Longhorn requirements
by polaris20 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 14:22 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not long ago WinSuperSite.com (MS butt-kissing Paul Therriott's site) said Longhorn required a minimum of 3ghz P4 or 1.8Ghz Pentium M, with 512MB of RAM. Has that changed, for the better?

It would be nice if you could run it on stuff you can buy today, i.e. P-M 1.5Ghz, P4 2.8Ghz, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My SuSE Pet Peeves
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 20th Jul 2005 15:03 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

"If Linux is slow or doesn't work, its either your mistake or its wrong distribution...excuses and more excuses == Linux

Try FreeBSD...it boots and shuts down in 20% time of Linux."

Aren't you contradicting yourself quite a bit?
You say that if linux is slow it is either your mistake or the wrong distro. But then you say that you use Red Hat 9, that it is slow but you don't consider trying something else (hint: something more modern, RH 9 is old as dirt in the fast evolving world of linux)

On top of that you advise FreeBSD but you don't use it yourself...

Reply Score: 1

Longhorn "performance" released as XP tweak
by pravda on Wed 20th Jul 2005 15:03 UTC
pravda
Member since:
2005-07-06

Subject: Microsoft claims Longhorn will be, er, faster

The only reason why its faster is they added a superfetch feature to the prefetcher. If you look at the key:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSession ManagerMemory ManagementPrefetcher

you will notice in windows xp

EnablePrefetcher = 3 and you will notice in windows longhorn
EnableSuperfetch = 1

Well, guess what? You can put the EnableSuperfetch = 1 in windows xp and get the same speed.


Wow, Microsoft just added a feature that was already there in xp.

snakeye

[At your own risk, Ed.]


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24749

Reply Score: 1

Why Longhorn
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 15:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why Longhorn will boot 50% faster?

Because it will require a dual core chip silly!

Reply Score: 0

Speed
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I hope you people realize that Windows uses al sorts of precashing, preloading and holding apps in memory. Also fast boot time dont mean nothing when Windows dont even detect major parts of you system (motherboard chipset ect)

One of the reasons why Linux is slower at boot is because it detects all hardware on boot, this is a good thing especially if you swap hardware regularly. People reinstall Windows to get thingks working proper, i.e Via to nForce chipset. Looks like Longhorn is going to have the same old problem so get ready to reinstall you Windows users :-)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Speed
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:14 UTC in reply to "Speed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"One of the reasons why Linux is slower at boot is because it detects all hardware on boot, this is a good thing especially if you swap hardware regularly."

That was exactly my experience. We had a our mail server
running on Debian woody. One day the box just started
rebooting by itself. I suspected that the HD is good and
it was the motherboard that was giving us problems. I took another PC and mount the HD from our mail server
and it just booted, finding all the hardware on the MB.
No need to install diff chip set. In less than an hour
we had our mail server running again.

Reply Score: 0

.NET loaded at startup
by doug on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:09 UTC
doug
Member since:
2005-07-07

My guess is that the .NET runtime will be started on boot, making .NET apps start up faster the first time.
JEdit tried the same thing with java to improve its startup time, and OpenOffice as well.

Reply Score: 1

Re[1]Why Longrun
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why Longhorn will boot 50% faster?

Because it will require a dual core chip silly!


Oh i see Shortrun is the only OS you can run on dual core.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My SuSE Pet Peeves and boot time
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux does not support parallel service during boot proccess in contrast to windows, BSD, OS X.
It means that linux will always start slower (on similar hardware) than other OSes because each service has to wait "in line" for time to boot. If you are getting opposite results, it means that your windows xp installation is screwed. Nothing else.

There is a new project called initng that should resolve the problem (adding parallelism to the linux boot proccess):
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-331844.html

Slow boot time really does not matter in the case of servers, however is is important for workstations and particularly notebooks.

Reply Score: 0

2 second wake from sleep?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Mac OS X has been doing this for years.

Reply Score: 0

Windows Hand Holding
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 16:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>>Ok, it suchs that Windows needs hand holding but it is easy to keep it chugging along very quick if you know anything about it.<<<

Gee, when people make the same remark about Linux they get jumped all over.

I guess this means Windows isn't ready for the desktop yet...

Reply Score: 0

linux parallel service boot
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...Linux does not support parallel service during boot proccess in contrast to...

"Jimmy Wennlund has been doing to Linux what Apple has done to Tiger: Make it boot faster. Jimmy wrote initng, a replacement for the Sys-V style "init" application. It allows for better service dependency checking and will start services in a highly parallel fashion, dramatically speeding up the Linux boot process."


http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10513&offset=15&rows=30&t...

Reply Score: 0

Belh
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft is full of it. These are minor speed increases at best and they will likely be accomplished by tricks like showing the XP desktop but not actually being able to do anything with it.

Reply Score: 0

Registry sucks
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As long as it is registry based it will suck. Buy a Mac. OS X is faster wth each new version which is unknown in the Windoze world.

Reply Score: 0

Buy a Mac
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Problem solved

Reply Score: 0

Why dont you write to Microsoft?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ladies and Gentlemen, all here who dought that what Ms has claimed for Longhorn, should write a letter to uncle billy, stating to prove its point when Longhron is officially released. Yeah.

Reply Score: 0

Reboot Frequency
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>>I really don't understand people who shut down their computers, except when facing a storm or other special conditions.<<<

You think electricity is free?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Reboot Frequency
by helf on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:50 UTC in reply to "Reboot Frequency"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

In my small house I have a mac, two laptops, ibm netvista, NeXT turbo and two scrapped together desktop PCs running 24/7.. with all that plug a tv thats almost always on and AC thats running 24/7 my power bill last month was 40 bucks.

electricity isnt very expensive.. here at least ;)

Reply Score: 1

SoCal
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You obviously don't live in Southern Cal, where I've NEVER had an electricity bill below $50 (have been $150 before during the 'blackouts'). I NEVER have turned on heat or AC, just fridge, ocassional TV (don't even have cable) and a radio. That said, I still leave my laptop on 24/7, but shut the lid when it's not in use. Haven't rebooted in maybe 6 months, but I'm running linux so no problems. Not sure why everyone is concerned about boot times, totally irrelevant to me, even when I used to use dozer about 8 years ago I wasn't concerned with boot times - more concerned about a stable system (which windoze is NOT - argue with me all you want, but I'll ALWAYS win that debate).

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: It is totally possible
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 03:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Or alternately, you could switch to a Mac and find that with each system update, it works better - and without having to maintain your system as you would in Windows. Side benefits include no viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, and very little (if any) crashes.
The OS is solid as, fast even on old hardware (have you tried running XP Professional on a 1998 Pentium 2?), easy to use, intuitive, comes with iLife for everything you want to do digitally. The hardware lasts longer and has a better resale value after a couple of years.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: It is totally possible
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It is totally possible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The OS is solid as, fast even on old hardware (have you tried running XP Professional on a 1998 Pentium 2?)

Yeah, if you turn off all the graphics crap and a few services itll run fine. In fact itll run fin on a p180/64mb if you disable a few things..

Reply Score: 0

RE: Reboot frequency
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>> You think electricity is free? <<<

Ever heard of power saving functions? Shut down your monitor, printer, and other additional gadgets, and put your PC to soft sleep. Actually, how much do you think a PC requires power when it does nothing, anyway (if not in sleep)?

Reply Score: 0

Reboot
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 18:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Of course you all miss the point that Linux dont need to reboot, if your always making new kernels(like me) then thats the only reason.

People come over to Linux and carry on there reboot mentality, just shows dont it. :-)

Reply Score: 0

It always cracks me up...
by Anonymous on Sun 24th Jul 2005 12:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

When Microsoft uses it's "own" software as a comparison. "Less blue screens! Less boot time! Less waiting for applications to load!" (than the previous version)-That's like saying "look! our vehicles crash into a wall by themselves 50% LESS than they used to!"

hehe

Reply Score: 0