Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Jul 2013 22:15 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A war between two of the major conglomerates will always have casualties, and unfortunately for us, this time we are the casualties. We aren't yet at a state where it is impossible to use Google services on Microsoft platforms, but we are moving towards a stricter ecosystem world where we might see Googlers/Gmail users on one side and Bingers/Outlook users on the other. We can only hope for the sake of technologies future and for the sake of innovation that the two companies can learn to work together in an ever expanding world of data." We can hope so, but we're talking large companies, and large companies do not care about users. Never have, never will.
Permalink for comment 566741
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Google on Windows 8
by Neolander on Thu 11th Jul 2013 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Google on Windows 8"
Member since:

To play the devil's advocate, this wouldn't matter so much if modern OSs were actually able to prioritize disk accesses properly, or alternatively if applications stopped performing long tasks like disk accesses in their main UI thread in a blocking fashion.

In hardware, disk seek times, which are the time intrinsically needed for a disk drive to switch from reading the data of a low-priority task to reading the data of a high-priority task, are of the order of a milisecond. So I don't buy the "hardware is too slow for multitasking" argument. If you imagine an OS optimized for responsive multitasking that would enforce a prioritization policy like "foreground tasks can get full access to system resources for up to 90% of the time, while background tasks share the remaining 10%". In such a scenario, why should the amount of background tasks matter?

Edited 2013-07-11 06:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1