Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
E-mail Print r 14   · Read More · 221 Comment(s)
Permalink for comment 561371
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'm not arguing that XP is the best OS ever. I think that for the most part Windows 7 is better than XP. Obviously it supports modern hardware fully. The question is are current Linux distros on the same level yet of 13 year old XP. I say no. The above considerations are elementary consideration for an OS. Essentials. Linux fails on these and Windows scores extremely high (better than any OS). I am only considering these elementary considerations here. If we were to consider usage elements then I would argue that Linux isn't even yet on the level of Windows 95. Windows 95 was much easier to use/admin than Linux is today (or ever has been). Sad but true.

I should also correct my post for scenario 3. XP should score a B or a C and not an A since it does not support 64bit and more than 4GB ram...hence not fully the hardware after all. But at the same time Microsoft has Win 7 which would score an A in that scenario.

Edited 2013-05-13 07:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1