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.
Permalink for comment 561437
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: This is anti-MS propaganda
by Alfman on Mon 13th May 2013 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: This is anti-MS propaganda"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

triangle,

"First, although my posts are full of anti-linux sentiments (and are quite provocative)... just as you claim, I actually used no propaganda. What exactly did you find to be propaganda?"

I don't think you are hearing yourself. You'd never accept such a mindless rant targeted against windows, why would you expect anybody else to take your mindless rant against linux seriously?


"Second, although you don't (and most Linux users here) don't appreciate harsh criticism about Linux, it is well deserved. I didn't post anti-Linux sentiments in a pro-linux site for appreciation."


Is that what you think? I don't mind linux criticism in the least. I'm just disappointed in the level of intelligence these rants are reducing the comments to. It makes the discussion uninteresting and boring.


"Because it is f'n true. Wake the hell up and stop distorting reality with BS propaganda. Linux faster than MS? Please." ...

You responded to me, but who the heck are you talking to? You are just shouting that everything is BS and propaganda without being able to put your finger on it or talk intelligently about it. If you want to talk intelligently then I ask you again to at least cite some of the specific benchmarks of what you are talking about. I have no problem accepting that some benchmarks might put linux behind, but you need to accept that even if linux were behind on a bootup benchmark, that's only one aspect of an operating system's performance and that doesn't make it "garbage".



"I know there is no hope for Linux. You guys are too smart and too right. So smart that no one else is smart enough to appreciate what you have made. Are you going to now correct me that this is not in fact the defacto attitude in the Linux community?"

Just because you've just chosen to focus on the egotistical subset of the linux community doesn't mean that we're all so obnoxious.

I am completely open to have an intelligent discussion on the subject. This link shows many different performance metrics for ubuntu + windows both 32bit and 64bit including bootup, shutdown, I/O performance. I link it specifically because it has many interesting data points to talk about.

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-wind...

The bootup benchmarks are surprisingly close (in my opinion they're all bad, but that's a different discussion). In some benchmarks you'll see windows is quite the slug. Never the less it's not a basis for calling windows "garbage". It's more likely that users choose an OS for other reasons and performance is just an incidental consequence.

Reply Parent Score: 3