Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Dec 2008 23:44 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows I'm sure you're all still (sadly) familiar with the recent 'debate' I had with InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, which detailed a lot of silly things. The seed of that discussion was planted with Kennedy's first article which, among other things, claimed that Windows 7 performed similarly to Windows Vista (meaning, slower than XP). Leaving the thread count discussion behind, Kennedy did include a benchmark which showed that Windows 7 performed similar to Windows Vista. There's a new benchmark out now, comparing a slightly more recent build of Windows 7 to Vista RTM/SP1 and XP SP3, and in these tests, Windows 7 blows all of those out of the water.
Permalink for comment 340302
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

As a former Windows software developer (no, it's not something I want to do again. Ever) I have to say something here.

As a software architect, I can assure you that developers are not joyfully going to restrict their own apps with installation requirement like "Admin Rights Needed"


They dont do it joyfully, they do it out of cluelessness. Face it, up until very recently the majority of Windows developers did not understand or care about security concerns. Although some of this blame must go to framework and toolkit developers too, they didnt care or understand much either.
This is painfully illustrated by the many, many games who for, God knows what reason, don't work unless you're an Administrator.

I knew of a case where "no apparent reason" was the dependency on a certain MS system DLL (needed because of bugs in other versions).


That's not how DLL's work. If a dev told you that he was either lying or didn't know how to do the task properly.

It's not that MS itself is a good example


That's no excuse.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4