Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:17 UTC
Windows More news on Windows 8. This time around, Gabe Aul, a director of program management in Windows, blogged about the changes Microsoft has made to Windows 8's boot process. The results are impressive - a boot time not much slower than waking from sleep on current Windows 7 and Mac OS X machines. This is, of course, a vital component of getting Windows NT ready for tablets.
Order by: Score:
Wow
by suryad on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:18 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

Windows 8 is turning out to be a very interesting OS after all. I do quite enjoy using Windows 7 and I also use Linux at work exclusively. Windows 8 has got my interest piqued!

Reply Score: 3

v ... *yawn*
by x0f3r_ on Fri 9th Sep 2011 16:56 UTC
RE: ... *yawn*
by lucas_maximus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 17:25 UTC in reply to "... *yawn*"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

POST DELETED

Edited 2011-09-09 17:25 UTC

Reply Score: 3

ummm ... hibernate?
by kristoph on Fri 9th Sep 2011 18:06 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

All their doing here is making shutdown the equivalent of a partial hibernate.

No doubt they will now have ...

- Sleep
- Hibernate
- Shut Down
- Shut Down and Reset

So what will happen here is that most installs will still do a reset and require a 'full' restart and the only time you really get this 'fast' boot is when you shut down your computer for the night and restart it in the morning.

It also looks like the address space of services is restored so problematic memory gobbling services won't get reset in a regular restart.

Edited 2011-09-09 18:12 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: ummm ... hibernate?
by Moochman on Sun 11th Sep 2011 16:21 UTC in reply to "ummm ... hibernate?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. And this gets at the primary issue with Windows 7 (and Windows Vista before it): regardless of how fast the OS is "in use", when you have to wait between 10 and 60 minutes for it to update itself every few days, when all you want to do is turn it on (or off) and start (stop) working, all that theoretical speed is negated from the end-user perspective. This is one of the reasons people love the iPad (and to a lesser extent, the Mac)--it's generally hassle-free, while updates are fast, easy, not forced down your throat while you're trying to work, and most important, few and far-between. Turning on/off a computer, starting the task you want to start, whatever it may be, should not be an ordeal, it should be instant, like an appliance, like a TV. As long as Microsoft fails to understand this, Windows will continue to lose market share to all manner of competitors, iOS and Android included.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ummm ... hibernate?
by Moochman on Sun 11th Sep 2011 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ummm ... hibernate?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and don't get me started on driver installation. Why is it that on Mac and Linux, you can plug in any old mouse, any old keyboard, any old thumb drive, any old memory card reader, (almost) any old printer or camera, and it instantly "just works" while on Windows it takes at least 30 seconds for the first time plugging in each new device, sometimes even multiple times per device depending on which USB port you plug it into!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ummm ... hibernate?
by Moochman on Sun 11th Sep 2011 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: ummm ... hibernate?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Not sure why these comments were voted down... I speak from experience, that I'm sure many have shared... whatever, seems pretty obvious that there are some MS astroturfers roaming the lands...

Reply Score: 2

60 minute updates?
by zlynx on Mon 12th Sep 2011 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: ummm ... hibernate?"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

60 minutes for updates? Even 10 minutes is horribly long.

You should get an SSD. I think the longest Windows 7 update process I've experienced since going SSD is 3 minutes.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by krreagan
by krreagan on Fri 9th Sep 2011 18:57 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

"This is, of course, a vital component of getting Windows NT ready for tablets."

Why?

I have only rebooted my tablet on updates... since last Xmas. A fast boot is not really necessary for tablets.

KRR

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by krreagan
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 00:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by krreagan"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yep.... The main concern for a tablet OS is being able to wake up from sleep instantly and have a very fast resume-sleep cycle., while giving the apps enough time to do something useful...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by krreagan
by ridsyaf on Sat 10th Sep 2011 11:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by krreagan"
ridsyaf Member since:
2010-12-03

it's vital because it will need frequent reboot, and sometimes it will reboot by itself...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by krreagan
by zlynx on Mon 12th Sep 2011 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by krreagan"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

"Frequent reboot"?

Maybe once a month if there is an OS level update every month.

The last time I had to reboot Windows 7 for a non-update reason was when my antivirus's web scanner got wedged and wouldn't let me load pages.

It did bluescreen maybe two months ago because of the ATI video drivers.

What frequent reboots are you expecting Windows 8 to require?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by krreagan
by lemur2 on Mon 12th Sep 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by krreagan"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Frequent reboot"? Maybe once a month if there is an OS level update every month. The last time I had to reboot Windows 7 for a non-update reason was when my antivirus's web scanner got wedged and wouldn't let me load pages. It did bluescreen maybe two months ago because of the ATI video drivers. What frequent reboots are you expecting Windows 8 to require?


I have a under-powered netbook called an Acer Aspire One 522, which has only a 1GHz 64bit dual-core CPU with Radeon HD 6250 graphics and a high-resolution 1280 x 720 pixel display.

http://liliputing.com/2011/03/acer-aspire-one-522-netbook-review.ht...

I have set up this machine to dual-boot Windows 7 (which it came with) and Kubuntu 11.04 (which is my self-installed value-enhancer). Only very occasionally do I bother to boot Windows 7, because it takes soooooo long.

Anyway, the time before last when I had booted Windows 7, the machine advised that updates were available, and recognising that updates on Windows 7 are absolutely crucial to the continued good functioning of the machine, I allowed them to proceed when I shut down the machine. It took ages to shut down, so I had assumed the machine had installed the updates. Silly me.

When I next booted the machine, the updates that were only queued did actually install. I waited, waited and waited for the machine to start, all the while it was telling me ... "Do not turn off this machine" or similar message. It took well over an hour, and no less than three re-boots, before I could begin to use the desktop.

Well over an hour to boot, and three reboots required in only two Windows login sessions ... that has GOT to be some kind of record doesn't it?

Meanwhile, on the exact same machine, the maximum time to boot Kubuntu 11.04 has been about 15 seconds.

Edited 2011-09-12 23:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by krreagan
by manjabes on Tue 13th Sep 2011 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by krreagan"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Meanwhile, on the exact same machine, the maximum time to boot Kubuntu 11.04 has been about 15 seconds.


Except when you happen to update your *buntu, after which your graphics driver is borked, sound driver needs to be reconfigured and Samba has gone bananas and needs to be tamed again.

Seriously, you sound like pretty precious Linux has NO kernel updates (that require a reboot and maybe recompiling a driver or two), no X updates (that require restarting X, a process equivalent to a reboot for any GUI-using user) and even if these updates happen (which they don't because it's Linux, which is by definition perfect) then they happen automagically and don't bork your KDE session or require a reboot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by krreagan
by lemur2 on Tue 13th Sep 2011 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by krreagan"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Meanwhile, on the exact same machine, the maximum time to boot Kubuntu 11.04 has been about 15 seconds.
Except when you happen to update your *buntu, after which your graphics driver is borked, sound driver needs to be reconfigured and Samba has gone bananas and needs to be tamed again. Seriously, you sound like pretty precious Linux has NO kernel updates (that require a reboot and maybe recompiling a driver or two), no X updates (that require restarting X, a process equivalent to a reboot for any GUI-using user) and even if these updates happen (which they don't because it's Linux, which is by definition perfect) then they happen automagically and don't bork your KDE session or require a reboot. "

Sigh!

I don't upgrade Linux operating systems in place ... instead I replace the entire OS when I transition from one release to the next. I don't use proprietary drivers, for graphics cards I use either the open source Radeon drivers from Xorg or the Intel drivers from Intel. The Acer Aspire One 522 works beautifully with the open source Radeon driver.

On Linux, when updates are due, one just lets the auto-updater run in the background. It is not required that you stop working.

Occasionally, even for Linux, the kernel or some core component is updated. In this case the system shows a little yellow icon in the system tray, advising that a re-boot is required. At my convenience, I save what I was doing, close down the applications I was using, and perform the requested re-boot.

As I said, this re-boot takes less than 15 seconds for Kubuntu 11.04 on my under-powered Acer Aspire One 522.

I have separated the user's home partition from the the operating system partition on this machine. When the time comes after October this year, I will probably upgrade the Kubuntu operating system (at my convenience, when the machine is not being used for anything) to Kubuntu 11.10. I will wipe Kubuntu 11.04, re-format the OS partition (but not obviously the user's home partition), and install Kubuntu 11.10 in the OS partition. The whole operation will take only about 30 minutes.

At no stage will I need to re-compile anything. I will test my system first by booting Kubuntu 11.10 from a USB stick before I commit it to the hard drive, so I will ensure that nothing will be borked.

Edited 2011-09-13 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Wake from sleep?
by darknexus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 19:48 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I seriously doubt they've got boot times down to two seconds, as that's all my Windows 7 netbook takes to wake from sleep (aka standby). I think what was meant was waking from hibernate, not sleep. I don't get the boot time obsession in either case. My netbook takes a whopping 15 seconds to boot. Wow, that's just, like, so very much time to wait. I hardly reboot the thing anyway, when I'm done with it I just close the lid and let it sleep. When I need it again, I flip open the lid and it's back, so long as I've still got battery power in it anyway. And yes, this netbook has a mechanical hd, not an ssd. If I can already boot the thing in 15 seconds, I really don't see why boot times are so important. It's not a super-tweaked version of Windows, though I did install Ultimate and get rid of Starter.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wake from sleep?
by Jaktar on Fri 9th Sep 2011 20:19 UTC in reply to "Wake from sleep?"
Jaktar Member since:
2011-06-03

It's important because Android and Apple would use it as a selling point if theirs was better. From what I've been able to read, this also will affect the length of time to shutdown the machine and will increase battery life. It's full of win.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wake from sleep?
by Lennie on Fri 9th Sep 2011 20:34 UTC in reply to "Wake from sleep?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

As I understand it, they save the state of all the hardware detection and services. So they seperate the initialization of the hardware in 2 parts ? Instead of searching for hardware, they just initialize it ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wake from sleep?
by bogomipz on Fri 9th Sep 2011 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Wake from sleep?"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, that's how I read it as well. It should mean you only need full reboot after changing hardware or drivers ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wake from sleep?
by darknexus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Wake from sleep?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

As I understand it, they save the state of all the hardware detection and services. So they seperate the initialization of the hardware in 2 parts ? Instead of searching for hardware, they just initialize it ?


Oh, I hope not. That's fine and dandy on a tablet, but not on a desktop or netbook. Some laptop and netbook vendors tried this, they call it fastboot or quickboot or some other variant on that name. Do you know how many support calls I've gotten when that thing fails to initialize the new ram people install? You'd be amazed how many people think they know what they're doing and then don't bother to check the quickboot setting (you have to reset it so it can rescan the hardware). But hey, I guess it'll keep people like me in business. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wake from sleep?
by Neolander on Fri 9th Sep 2011 22:18 UTC in reply to "Wake from sleep?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, if you have to use sleep instead of proper shutdowns, I guess it shows why boot times matter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wake from sleep?
by vodoomoth on Sat 10th Sep 2011 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Wake from sleep?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Not really. I use Vista and although shutdowns and cold starts are significantly long (3 to 5 minutes in total depending on whether there is an anti-virus running or not), hibernate/resume is also pretty long (around 2 minutes, sometimes more). For me, the main interest in hibernate compared to full shutdown is that work sessions are carried through several days or weeks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wake from sleep?
by Neolander on Sat 10th Sep 2011 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wake from sleep?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Sure, but he was talking about a netbook which he keeps putting to sleep (closing the lid), not in hibernation. Recovering in seconds is one crucial advantage of sleep on modern OSs.

Reply Score: 1

When is booting complete?
by krreagan on Fri 9th Sep 2011 20:44 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

It also matters what you consider completing the "boot" process. My current computer puts up a login window in about 15sec and I can login but I can't use the damn thing for another ~45sec-1min while it finishes the "boot" process and logs me in. If I wait about 2 minutes after the login window shows up and then login, it only takes about 5-10 sec to get to my desktop. This indicates that the OS is still booting even after the login window is presented to the user.
Is there a standard that is used to tell when booting is complete?

KRR

Reply Score: 5

RE: When is booting complete?
by darknexus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 22:25 UTC in reply to "When is booting complete?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It also matters what you consider completing the "boot" process. My current computer puts up a login window in about 15sec and I can login but I can't use the damn thing for another ~45sec-1min while it finishes the "boot" process and logs me in.


Wow, how much do you have running at startup? There's no reason it should be taking that long unless you're running Vista before sp1 or unless you have far too many startup services.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: When is booting complete?
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: When is booting complete?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If your primary use of a computer is Facebook/Skype, then you will not get to those services within 30 seconds.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually I have 1 second login time on my Windows 7 desktop ... pretty simple to achieve.

Windows + R .. then type msconfig ... you can disable most unneeded startup items in there. I only run Adobe Flex, SQL Server, Skype and AV.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: When is booting complete?
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: When is booting complete?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That is BS! Skype is not Usable in 1 second after it starts.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Oh Comon!

1 second for my desktop to be usable, you know when you have like more than 1 core, more than one programs can loaded at the same time ;-).

Skype is still doing it thing in the background ... If I click for Chrome it starts up pretty much instantly. Okay skype isn't signed it but I can start using my desktop.

(Skype seems to take exactly the same amount of time on my HTC desire as it does on Windows to sign in ... I think the majority is network latency)

I just killed skype and tried started it from scratch and it took 5 seconds to sign in ... most of this appeared to be network latency while syncing contacts and conversations.

My machine gets a WEI of 6.3 on Windows 7.

For a more "normal machine" I have a Dell D430, WEI on Windows 7 is 2.1 ... We are talking about 30-45 seconds from cold boot. I don't think that is bad for a machine has a 4200rpm iPod hardrive, and a 1.2ghz Core 2 ULV processor, and is running SQL Server 2008 R2 as a service.

Edited 2011-09-10 22:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

wifi ?
by TomF on Fri 9th Sep 2011 20:53 UTC
TomF
Member since:
2010-01-22

sleep/wakeup:

Windows 7: fast
Fedora 15: pretty fast
Mac OS 10.6: very fast

after wakeup, access to wifi:
Windows 7: very slow
Fedora 15: very slow
Mac OS 10.6: instant access !

so wasup with wifi ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: wifi ?
by gonzo on Fri 9th Sep 2011 21:17 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

after wakeup, access to wifi:
Windows 7: very slow


Very fast here. Just tested (regular HP laptop, nothing fancy at all).

Wake up, enter password, click link and it works. No delays at all.

My guess - it depends on manufacturer/drivers, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: wifi ?
by MrWeeble on Fri 9th Sep 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18


Mac OS 10.6: instant access !

so wasup with wifi ?


I think the answer to your question may be here:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24943/Rapid_DHCP_Or_How_Do_Macs_Get_on_...

Reply Score: 4

RE: wifi ?
by gan17 on Sat 10th Sep 2011 00:04 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

My netbook running GRML (Debian Sid based) wakes up to the CDM (Console Display Manager) screen in about 2 seconds, and the moment I hit "Enter" after typing my password, I'm already connected to my wifi network ,assuming it's the same network I was connected to when I put the netbook to sleep.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wifi ?
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 00:53 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Just did a quick Sleep/Resume. With 2 seconds to password prompt. I type in my password in 1 second. WiFi was connected at the moment I saw the desktop no more than 3.5 sec after I pressed Fn+F4 (resume)...


Writing from Ubuntu 10.04 on ThinkPad T42(all original parts)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wifi ?
by kristoph on Sat 10th Sep 2011 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE: wifi ?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

My computer totally blows away your computer!

It resumes from hibernate instantly as I walk towards it. It has a time dilation chip which digitally spins faster than light and is therefore able to go back in time to start resuming from hibernate the instant I think of waking it.

Also my dog is meaner then your dog and my tin foil had is pointier then your tin foil hat!

So there!

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: wifi ?
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wifi ?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Ha! My PC is a time traveller! It came from 2006, stopped in April 2010 to get Ubuntu 10.04 and skipped another year!

PS: It also knows when I will want it to be on :-D

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: wifi ?
by andih on Mon 12th Sep 2011 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wifi ?"
andih Member since:
2010-03-27

well, my disc is bigger than your disc

Reply Score: 1

RE: wifi ?
by SeeM on Sat 10th Sep 2011 09:46 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

On PC laptop you have crappy "builtin usb" wifi dongle. Check lsusb for info about that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wifi ?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 11th Sep 2011 14:44 UTC in reply to "wifi ?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Mac OS X 10.6 is not an instant reconnect to wifi after sleep. I experience the delay daily. Its anywhere between 5- 10 seconds. Sometimes I have to completely disable wifi and bring it back up.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by andih
by andih on Fri 9th Sep 2011 22:36 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

hmm, wonder if will it be enough to "hiberboot" when going trough the tedious endless chain of reboots during windows update process.. :p

Doesn't look like new technology to me... more like: logoff && pm-hibernate

Still think this would work better on linux and mac than on windows, since windows is an os that needs to be ¤restarted¤ pretty often in comparison to its competition. (not even including the horrible windows update in the math..)

I believe its a good idea though ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by andih
by vodoomoth on Sat 10th Sep 2011 08:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Are you actually a current Windows user? I'm still on Vista and Windows Update is activated: reboots are not as frequent as you guys make it out to be. The Windows XP days are long gone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by andih
by andih on Sun 11th Sep 2011 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by andih"
andih Member since:
2010-03-27

vodoomoth, well I don't consider my self a windows user, but technically I am.

I was in the past, and am still, but only when at work.
Now I'm responsible for 400+ windows computers and a half a dozen windows servers. So I install, configure, and maintain windows computers/servers daily. Mostly win7 and some xp. Even got a 95 running for a bizarre program :p

I love the speed, freedom, stability and versatility I got with linux. My home is MS free zone,
and I use windows only when I am getting paid.

Luckily I have to manage a few linux desktops and a couple of linux and bsd servers too both on and off site. Thats a nice break from all the windows-work.

Some days ago I was scripting and had to use icacls command, turned out I had a old and bugged version that wouldnt be updated through windows update. Command was partly defect and I had to go through hell sending emails to MS and crap to make them send me a download link to a patch.. wth? what is MS afraid of?! Patches should be publicly available.
chown+chmod ftw, sooo much better!
open source <3 accessible, powerful and free:)

I hate windows update, but that's not the only part of windows that suck. The list would probably be shorter if listing what does not suck.

The only reason I can see for a techie to use windows must be to run directX games.. For the rest, linux eats MS for lunch.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by andih
by ilovebeer on Mon 12th Sep 2011 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by andih"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The only reason I can see for a techie to use windows must be to run directX games.. For the rest, linux eats MS for lunch.

Thanks, I hadn't had a decent laugh today until now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by andih
by andih on Mon 12th Sep 2011 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by andih"
andih Member since:
2010-03-27

ilovebeer, glad you enjoyed it.

Here is for another laugh ;)
I laughed at the microsoft commercials,
but feel free to laugh at author instead :p

http://linuxologist.com/1general/microsofts-best-buy-lies-about-lin...

Reply Score: 1

They always promise this
by dpJudas on Sat 10th Sep 2011 05:58 UTC
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Another new version of Windows, another new promise of faster boot up times. I thought you had used Windows long enough to notice the scam by now, Thom. ;)

Notice how they are improving the part of boot-up that is not really truly the problem with Windows. It is all the disk trashing that goes on when you log on along with their brain-dead FIFO I/O system that causes people to count boot-up times in minutes on budget computers.

Basically what is happening is that all disk access is serialized in the kernel without any regard to what process is doing the request. This means that if you have just a few background processes using the disk, the kernel buffers are filled with that and the 1 KB file the user is waiting for now takes 5 seconds to fetch.

Nothing they have announced here addresses the real problem (poorly designed I/O priority and that countless apps all start at the same time) and so the next version of Windows will effectively boot just as slow as the last one did on budget PCs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by ilovebeer on Sat 10th Sep 2011 06:46 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I've used most iterations of Windows back to Windows 95, never spent my money on the absolute top-of-the-line hardware, and never had a boot time longer then 30 seconds to usable desktop.

My advice to you is to go through the services and set whatever doesn't need to be automatic to manual. You should notice a big difference with that alone.

Reply Score: 0

RE: They always promise this
by kovacm on Sat 10th Sep 2011 07:01 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Great post dpJudas!

I've used most iterations of Windows back to Windows 95, never spent my money on the absolute top-of-the-line hardware, and never had a boot time longer then 30 seconds to usable desktop.


my favorite part in Windows 9x was closing start menu - if you click on start menu and start to browse for favorite program BEFORE windows finished complete boot process then there is a big chance that start menu will CLOSE in moment when windows complete with booting process interrupting you in browsing through start menu.

Microsoft NEVER know how to build quality product - their products are Spaghetti code with crap UI.

like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdCvVVFJdns

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: They always promise this
by vodoomoth on Sat 10th Sep 2011 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE: They always promise this"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


my favorite part in Windows 9x was closing start menu - if you click on start menu and start to browse for favorite program BEFORE windows finished complete boot process then there is a big chance that start menu will CLOSE in moment when windows complete with booting process interrupting you in browsing through start menu.

True. This still happens with Vista SP 2 and you don't even need to be in the boot process: click an icon to launch a program and immediately after, open any menu or popup window (like the Start menu) and browse it. As soon as the launched program's main window shows up on the screen, the popup window is closed. Just tried it with Nero and the Start menu. I guess Windows people still haven't made their minds about where to insert new main windows when popup windows are opened.


Microsoft NEVER know how to build quality product - their products are Spaghetti code with crap UI.

I can see you've never used Visual Studio or even the basic Windows Mail. I hate Vista as much as I can hate anything but despite its insufferable slowness, it works flawlessly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Microsoft makes bad systems software. At engineering, they fail. Their applications group has gotten pretty good, on the other hand, and is less easily maligned.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: They always promise this
by vodoomoth on Mon 12th Sep 2011 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: They always promise this"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Microsoft makes bad systems software. At engineering, they fail.

Cheap shot and unsubstantiated claim. Such a cheap shot and yet you don't give an example. I have one counter-example: Microsoft's SndVol.exe vs Linux sound system. And yes, a second one: video driver crash on Vista and video driver crash in X. I know which boat I'd rather be in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Are you seriously suggesting that I need to provide *evidence* that MS isn't good at writing systems software? Is your counter-argument *REALLY* going to be that they made one utility better than a similar utility that can be found elsewhere?

User-facing utilities like that are solidly on the application side of things. Perhaps you're talking about alsa vs. the Windows sound subsystem? That would be more solidly on the systems side of things. But, even so, your argument is fallacious: "Because A does B, which is a member of class C, better than E does B, this proves that A is good at doing things of class C." This doesn't hold. It proves at least that A is better at B than E is, and at most that A is better at C than E is.

If you are trying to say "Audio sucks under Linux more than under Windows" you are saying something which is supportable but irrelevant. Very few people, or companies, fail at everything all the time. It was never my intention to say that Microsoft has *never* done *anything* right when it comes to systems software, just that they're generally not good at it. One counter example doesn't disprove this.

I know what you're thinking! "COUNTER example? Where's YOUR example to begin with?!" I hold up to you the last 30 years as evidence.

Honestly, I'm surprised. I was trying to be *complimentary* to Microsoft, which is something I am loath to do. I am forgiving MS its well known failings and being supportive by saying that there are, indeed, some things they do well. Take the compliment and try not to make yourself appear ignorant by trying to argue that Microsoft hasn't repeatedly failed to produce quality software.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No you weren't being supportive of Microsoft ... it was a cheapshot.

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 and Windows 7 are so stable ... fast (yes fast unless you have really crap hardware and most modern Linux distros will also run like crap on them).

Considering Windows has been ported to ARM pretty easily considering it is probably in excess of 100 million lines of code actually suggests they are fucking excellent system engineers.

Slag Microsoft off all you want ... you won't change the fact that many people use Windows everyday with zero problems ... I have never needed to drop to the command line to fix a problem with Windows.

The fact is that Microsoft haters like yourself pretty much have nothing else to slag Microsoft off about other than "freedomz", ancient business practices (which many of the competitors have done the same which are now proponents of Linux), it isn't *nix based and that The OS doesn't run that well on computers that are considered ancient now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: They always promise this
by Soulbender on Mon 12th Sep 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: They always promise this"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

considering it is probably in excess of 100 million lines of code actually suggests they are fucking excellent system engineers.


No it doesn't. More code != better engineers. They moght be, but the number of lines of code says nothing about how good the engineering is. If anything, it's the opposite.

The fact is that Microsoft haters like yourself pretty much have nothing else to slag Microsoft off about other than "freedomz"


"freedoms". That's clever. or not.
How this for a reason: I think it sucks and it hampers my work productivity.
That's just a valid reason for me as "many people use it without problems".

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

No you weren't being supportive of Microsoft ... it was a cheapshot.

I really don't see how.

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 and Windows 7 are so stable ...

How easily you forget the 90s (and the 80s... oh my). Perhaps you just weren't there?

Considering Windows has been ported to ARM pretty easily considering it is probably in excess of 100 million lines of code actually suggests they are fucking excellent system engineers.

Portability is a positive sign, but doesn't prove much. Does that make it better designed? In terms of code structure, perhaps, but little else.

Windows NT has always been portable. Some parts of the kernel reflect good design, IMO, but there's a lot of craziness running around there, too.

Slag Microsoft off all you want ... you won't change the fact that many people use Windows everyday with zero problems

Wow, nice straw-man argument! I didn't say anything of the kind, so I don't know why you'd care to bring it up.

I have never needed to drop to the command line to fix a problem with Windows.

Aha, so you've never really had to use Windows? That explains a lot. FYI, there are a lot of things which can only be done via the command line on Windows... or (sometimes) are just much easier.

The fact is that Microsoft haters like yourself pretty much have nothing else to slag Microsoft off about other than "freedomz"

I am indeed a Microsoft hater, though how you arrive at that conclusion by reading this thread I cannot imagine. I hate Microsoft because they make things that are unpleasant, broken, break under me, are inscrutable, fragile and sometimes impossible to fix. It's not fanaticism, it's tired experience. (Full disclosure: I am also a GNU fanatic, but I am rational enough not to let my preferences color my facts to any excessive degree.)

ancient business practices (which many of the competitors have done the same which are now proponents of Linux), it isn't *nix based and that The OS doesn't run that well on computers that are considered ancient now.

Which "Ancient" practices? As far as I am aware, they've never stopped doing any of the bad things they do... except for when it no longer matters. Are you just saying "Don't complain, you didn't get screwed THIS month!"?

I do have a problem with Windows not being Unix-like: The problem is that it could be, but sometimes is arbitrarily not, and in some cases that bites me. I have a problem with getting bitten for (as far as I can tell) no good reason.

As for ancient computers... who is it you *think* you're arguing with, here? Did I claim "Windows sucks because Windows 7 doesn't run on my PII350!"? I would never be able to run Fedora 15 on it, either, but I don't complain about that very much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: They always promise this
by Soulbender on Mon 12th Sep 2011 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: They always promise this"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Microsoft's SndVol.exe vs Linux sound system.


Uh, those two aren't even remotely comparable. SndVol.exe is comparable to kmix, puvucontrol etc. The equivalent to the Linux sound system would be Windows Audio.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by shotsman on Sat 10th Sep 2011 07:02 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

You seem to forget that the 'disk thrashing' will be a thing of the past when a new mandatory requirement of Windows 8 emerges.

-> In order to activate (if you have a Windows 8 FastBoot license) Fastboot, Windows 8 must be installed on a 12Gbps SSD of at least 1TB in size.

For everything else it is the 2-3 minutes disk thrash.

IMHO, Microsoft could do a lot to cut down the crud that gets started in an OOTB Windows 7 system. Just look at the services or the list in msconfig. There are far too many things running. If you (I mean you MS) want to get startup times down cut the crap out.

What I'd like to see is some proper benchmarks of startup. Not just with a clean freshly installed OS with no 'extras' installed. That is just not a realistic option. It is like stating that 'This car can do 160mph and in thre small(very small print) {coming down pikes peak with a following wind}.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by wigry on Sat 10th Sep 2011 08:35 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

I've noticed also that Windows depends heavily on disk access speed. The proof is that as soon as you defragment the Windows system files the overall system responsiveness increases massively. This means, that while using the Windows - like opening explorer, coying files, etc - windows every time accesses its DLL-s and it likes to read them from the disk. INSANE. If you have your shell, kernel and user DLL files in 20 pieces, those pieces are grabbed together gazillion times a day and that mans slow response time. I don't understand why MS does not use its cached copies of DLLs and accesses them from the disk.

Edited 2011-09-10 08:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:34 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Windows' I/O scheduler is just really awful. I mostly use Linux but use Windows at work and was amazed by the ever-present disk grinding and slow processing on any day when Symantec was scheduled to run a full scan. It's priority is set to as low as possible, but still everything takes at least 4 times as long (no exaggeration here, I've timed it).

After reading LWN one day and seeing a quote from a Linux kernel dev saying, basically, "If telling all your I/O heavy software to go all at once is ever slower than telling it to run in sequence, that's a kernel bug and we want to fix it," I realized that the reason this slowness bothered me on Windows is that I don't see it nearly as badly under Linux... and that the Windows I/O scheduling system must just be bad.

After that I removed all startup items from the registry and start menu and replaced them with a single batch file. In this file I inserted explicit sleeps of approximately the amount of time (as recorded by me) that I/O-heavy tasks would take to start up. Doing this, I found, improved overall startup time noticeably.

Verdict: Windows (at least up to the latest Vista) is so poorly written that 'manually' hinting to the I/O system dramatically improves performance. Who's surprised?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: They always promise this
by lucas_maximus on Mon 12th Sep 2011 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE: They always promise this"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Cut it with this crap ... You read on a site that is pro-Linux that Windows was doing something wrong ... That isn't evidence that is propaganda.

Your problem was that anything by Symantec is a pile of crap.

Funnily enough I can run a Disk Scan (complete) with MSE and I was playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution at the same time and never even experienced a slow down in framerate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Now now, be nice.

I didn't spout off ridiculous "ME TOO"isms. I am relating my experiences and data I collected by observation over the course of many months. Symantec AV is pretty crap as well, of course, and this made things worse on days when it was running, but the overall effect was not altered. Just to be very clear: I observed the same pattern of slowness and speedup even without symantec grinding the disks horribly.

You read on a site that is pro-Linux that Windows was doing something wrong ... That isn't evidence that is propaganda.

I'd like to address this point specifically, because you greatly misunderstand me. I read on LWN a Linux kernel developer talking about **LINUX**. In his opinion Linux has a bug if it cannot cope better with "A bunch of IO heavy tasks started simultaneously" than it can with "The same tasks started in sequence." He was saying that Linux should do better than the user, always, in scheduling IO or it's a bug in Linux. He never mentioned Windows.

What **I** did was begin thinking about the differences in the way I observed Linux and Windows reacting to disk contention, which lead me to run some experiments, which lead me to the conclusion that I began with above: Windows sucks at scheduling IO.

Edited 2011-09-12 20:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I always find it interesting that Only Microsoft haters have massive problems with Windows ...

Edited 2011-09-12 21:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

It's cause and effect, really. Those who have problems hate Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think you look for problems tbh. I still haven't had any real reason why you've had problems working With Microsoft products.

Edited 2011-09-12 22:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Tue 13th Sep 2011 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You hear no specifics because I am weary. I see no future in bringing up complaints here and now. I just don't care to enumerate all of the things that have bitten me. You can assume that I am just looking for reasons to complain, or that I have no basis in fact for my complaints, or that I just don't have any idea what I'm talking about, or whatever you like. It's not true, but if you don't believe what I say I cannot do a thing about it by saying more.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: They always promise this
by zlynx on Tue 13th Sep 2011 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: They always promise this"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

I'd like to address this point specifically, because you greatly misunderstand me. I read on LWN a Linux kernel developer talking about **LINUX**. In his opinion Linux has a bug if it cannot cope better with "A bunch of IO heavy tasks started simultaneously" than it can with "The same tasks started in sequence." He was saying that Linux should do better than the user, always, in scheduling IO or it's a bug in Linux. He never mentioned Windows.

What **I** did was begin thinking about the differences in the way I observed Linux and Windows reacting to disk contention, which lead me to run some experiments, which lead me to the conclusion that I began with above: Windows sucks at scheduling IO.

Somewhat related to this is my personal observations of Linux and Windows I/O behavior on a laptop with only 1 GB of RAM back in 2006.

Surprisingly, Windows XP seemed to perform much better under serious load than Linux 2.6.24. The main problem that Linux had is managing read activity under severe memory pressure. Reading data in always required writing data out to swap and/or releasing data from disk cache.

Linux almost always got this wrong, writing out data to swap or releasing buffer cache that was soon required, while Windows XP seemed to be able to keep a relevant working set in RAM for each application.

Linux also created absolutely horrid I/O patterns, writing a few KB to swap, then seeking back to read a few KB from a file, then seeking back to write a few more KB to swap, then needing to read a bit from other swap, etc. On a laptop drive this decreased I/O throughput to less than 50 KB/second while Windows XP seemed to be able to swap out a few megabytes at a time and then read entire files into cache. This may also have a lot to do with how Windows prioritizes the foreground application.

I sure hope the Linux developers have managed to fix the awful VM behavior. I know there have been a lot of fixes made to it.

I probably won't see the differences since I no longer have any 1 GB machines.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Tue 13th Sep 2011 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Your experiences are not out of line with mine. I did stop using swap on Linux years ago on my desktop systems, or rather set swappiness so that it was only ever used in dire emergencies. This does make make things remarkably better. And, as you note, Windows uses swap often without as bad an effect.

It is my understanding that there's a lot of tuning you can do if you want to try to make this sort of thing better, but I haven't looked in to it.

Reply Score: 2

spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I'm one of those people that doesn't use sleep or hibernate, just because the normal shutdown startup of ubuntu 10.04 LTS is good enough for me.

Sure, I've seen computers running windows 7 that are ready to use quickly, but most of them are just horrible on startup. Some even need minutes after you can see the desktop before they become really usable.

Before I believe all those things I first have to see how windows 8 performs on the average computer with an average user after a couple of months..

Reply Score: 5

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Why does everybody seem to think that startup times are the only reason to use hibernate? I only care about resuming sessions where I left them.

Reply Score: 2

spinnekopje Member since:
2008-11-29

Why does everybody seem to think that startup times are the only reason to use hibernate? I only care about resuming sessions where I left them.


I don't need my session to resume, so I forgot to mention it, but I certainly agree that it can be a valid reason.

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Just leave your computer running, don't shutdown OR hibernate. You get instant-resume and your 'session' is just as you left it.

I have to laugh and non-laptop sleep and hibernate aficionados. Overcomplicating things, much?

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Brilliant! How come nobody has ever figured that out?

Are you the kind of person who leaves their car running so that they feel comfortable in it when the time to commute has come? I'm not. And I guess nobody sane would suggest that.

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Nobody sane would suggest that, because it's crazy. Who said anything about comfort? You're confusing things which are not alike. We're talking about convenience and efficiency, not comfort, and we're talking about computers, not cars. These things are different therefore what's okay for one is not necessarily okay for another.

Are you the kind of person who puts oil in his computer keep it running well? I'm not, and I'm guessing nobody sane would suggest that.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 12th Sep 2011 17:08 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

We all know Windows is great at some things and crap at others. We all know Linux is great at some things and crap at others. Why has this thread turned into an argument between Windows/Linux fanboys over who's wiener is smaller?

It's 2011. I can't believe people still whine about this stuff. It's like 1990 refuses to die.

Reply Score: 1