Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:22 UTC, submitted by Deathspawner
"Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That's what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it's quite minimal as you'll find out."
Thread beginning with comment 205940
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2006-01-11
Member since:2006-01-02
I've been using virtual desktops on Windows since 1999 or so. You just had to ditch Explorer (it's not as nice as e or KDE, but oh well). There are other alternatives, now, of course, keeping Explorer. It has nothing to do with speed.
OS X doesn't have them as it comes, either. I'd be willing to bet you that most people get confused easily with them.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-07-04
"Yes, it [OSX 10.0] was [slower than OS9]. But then 10.1 was faster (much faster) again. We all know about how bad 10.0 was. "
I know that OSX increased its speed with releases 10.1, then 10.2, then 10.3, (but many experience slower perf with 10.4 due to Spotlight overhead). But as I said, it's not unusual for the *initial* release of a new OS to be slower than that of its predcesor, and that's because it's doing more stuff. The performance penalty lessens after that with incremental updates and more powerful hardware.
"This is the argument often put forth by proponents of Java and .NET/Mono. The thing is, as hardware power increases, I want my computer to get faster. If an operation took 30 seconds on my old PC, I want it to take 15 seconds on my new one with double the horsepower.
There was an interesting article a while back showing that computer boot time has remained pretty much constant since the days of Windows 95. That's not how it should be. "
Fine, you and many geeks have that Spartan mindset. But most people don't care about whether software is "faster", they want it to do more stuff (or do the same stuff in a prettier presentation and better user experience) in the same amount of time. I still preferred OSX 10.0 over OS9 despite the slower perf. Same witn Win95 visa-vi Win3.x. I mean, we could all be running 1988 versions of DOS and Unix on today's hardware and have instantaneous boot times, but would we want to?
Edited 2007-01-26 01:18