Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:26 UTC
Windows With Vista, Microsoft is addressing what's become a sad truth for most people: PCs run more slowly over time. Vista will automatically de-fragment hard disks, make better use of memory to more quickly load programs, and include a new performance control panel that will identify performance bottlenecks, according to the company. Elsewhere, ActiveWin hosts widescreen, high-res screenshots of Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 15423
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

It is not PC getting slower but new Windows versions getting more bloated and slower. This is a pity attempt of Microsoft to blame PCs for the excruciatingly slow speed of Vista. Shame on them. I am so glad I use Linux which is blazing fast on any PC.

Please get your facts straight. You can say all you want about Microsoft and Windows, but *not* that Windows XP is more demanding than a modern Linux distribution. Windows XP can even "run" on a 32MBRAM 20Mhz (yes, 20) Pentium! Proof:

http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini.htm

I'm getting really tired of this argument. Windows XP and especially 2000 run very well even on low-end machines. Claiming otherwise is a blatant sign of zealotry.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, and Linux will run on a 486 with 8MB of RAM. Anonymous is right, though. Each version of Windows is perceptably slower on the same hardware than previous versions (the opposite of Mac OS X, might I note). True, so is Linux if you use the latest and greatest KDE/Gnome. Linux's advantage over Windows in this situation is that you can still set Linux to use a light-weight WM and disable every service. You can do a little of that in Windows (disable most services, disable theming, disable all effects), but it still feels heavy. Furthermore, Linux offers a greater variety of tools that don't require the GUI, whereas most Windows software is GUI-intensive.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You do know that it's very easy to install a light WM on Windows, hmmm? The installer will automatically disable Explorer and use the new WM next bootup.

Contrary to popular belief, Windows also can use various window managers, and Windows is by no means bound to Explorer. Installing a WM on Windows is a mere case of a simple installer, like any other program. Installing a new WM on Linux can be quite a daunting task (allthough not always).

Reply Parent Score: 5

Member since:

Please get your facts straight. You can say all you want about Microsoft and Windows, but *not* that Windows XP is more demanding than a modern Linux distribution. Windows XP can even "run" on a 32MBRAM 20Mhz (yes, 20) Pentium! Proof:

This of course is moot point when you realise you won't be able to do anything useful on that old PC.

Reply Parent Score: 0

judmarc Member since:
2005-07-10

Well, let's compare "apples to apples" (no pun intended:) - noting "xpmini" in the URL, is this a plain vanilla install of XP?

I agree with part of your general point - Win2000 ran at perfectly acceptable speed for me on a 200mHz Pentium with 80mb of ancient RAM (60ns timing). OTOH, the FreeBSD 4.x series performed quite snappily on that hardware, too.

If by a "modern Linux distribution" you mean a GNOME or KDE desktop with lots of eye candy and resource-heavy apps installed by default, then yep, it'll probably make old hardware groan. It seems to me, however, that it's easier for Linux or *BSD users to choose lightweight desktops and apps than for Windows users to do so.

BTW, re the remark in another post about OSX becoming faster on older hardware: Though I've read this in a number of places, I can tell you that this isn't my own personal experience of working on my Dad's eMac, first with OSX 10.1, now with Tiger (latest available updates installed). With multiple apps open, Tiger occasionally hangs for a bit, whereas 10.1 didn't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Who is That Member since:
2005-07-02

10.1 was probably the worst slowest POS out of all the OS X releases. 10.3 was the fastest, tiger has new tech in it and they need to be fixed up well to run better.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Member since:

I've had windows xp on a 600Mhz cpu with 128Mb ram, windows ran like a crippled snail tied to a cube of tar. But since I haven't tried linux on such system, so it's hard for me to compare.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Jace Member since:
2005-07-25

How much stuff did you have to remove and turn into "non-standard" configuration (and therefore not usable for today's software) to get it to be usable? I used to customize my systems like crazy until I realised that I was causing more problems by customizing. The more different from the default the system is, the less likely software developers have tested with that configuration and the more likely you are to find bad behaviors and "bugs." There is too much interdependency going on in the system these days. I don't even mean a few DLLs. I mean Sound Forge 8 will not install without .NET framework being installed on the system (which is another 48MB of space wasted and how many more additions to the already bloated registry). The interdependencies are what is killing the system function and you cannot tell me that a cut down version of WinXP will support anything more than the basic system functions.

I've been there and I've tried it all. The further away you get from the default, the more problems you will have in the long run. I hate it because I would rather customize and put strict restrictions on what junk is installed and running, but it's a losing battle that a decade of experience has taught me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Member since:

Bro, you are full of it. I happen to like XP very much and use it every day. As far as I am concerned Linux is crap and only belongs on the computers of hobbyists, but you can not tell me that people will tolerate XP on anything less than a PIII 500MHz with 256MB RAM. If you got that much time on your hands, you must be collecting un-employment cheques or you got an extended stay in prison.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Member since:

Well, I don't know about XP, but ME wouldn't even install on anything less than a 150mhz cpu. In my experience, XP wants RAM mroe than they wan't mhz. I ran it on a Pentium2 266mhz with 256mb of ram... and while it did run, it wasn't very usable. On the other hand, the same PC with 394mb of ram made all the difference.

The fact of the matter is, it's not because XP is slow, or the hardware is slow. The reason that XP (and pretty much all versions of Windows) becomes slow after being installed for a while is because of the Registry and adware/spyware. I would say 99.99% of all windows programs will install something in the registry, which makes it grow bigger and bigger. And of course the registry is loaded into memory. Then the adware/spyware/malware will eat away the rest of the resources, making windows unstable and extremely slow. So unless Microsoft can completely prevent that (which I don't think they intend to do.) then there is no way that Vista will magically start running better for longer times without having to be re-installed.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Member since:

HAHA, give me some of that crack, seriousely.

you confuse booting with say, DOING ANYTHING useful including opening notepad in less that 3 days.

you are partially retarded if you have the patience to deal with XP on anything less that 750Mhz and 256 of ram

that is a sign of zealotry. i bet you think the fonts on XP are great too

Reply Parent Score: -1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

At work, I have a Pentium II 400MHz and XP SP2 is perfectly useable. Of course, you have to get rid of the special effects and the Fisher Price interface and stuff like Photoshop CS and Matlab takes a while to open, but it's nothing bad. It doesn't feel slower than the Pentium III 1GHz running FC2 besides me. That said, it has 384MB RAM: I doubt the PC would be useable with 64MB.

I am not exactly impressed with XP's fonts, but neither I am with Freetype's. One has blurry letters, the other has kerning issues with fonts.

Reply Parent Score: 1