To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The answer is simple: someone cares about Linux and Mac OS X and BSD and no one at Microsoft cares about great software, they only care about getting to the weekend.
Perhaps, if Microsoft used someone else's development tools, Vista would be somewhat leaner.
from the Microsoft point of view, "killer" features like desktop search or security make vista so slow. Then, who can explain to me how OSX or linux live with the same features, and are still responsive on less powerful machines?
That is exactly what I was wondering about..There is several background search utilities in Linux, like f.ex Beagle which of course does use some CPU time but it doesn't seem to need even nearly as much as the Microsoft implementation. And it's easy to turn Beagle off. What I don't know if Windows Search allows you to select which folders to index either.
Desktop bling and effects? Linux (I talk about Linux only cos I haven't tried BSDs or such) atleast does allow those effects with really good performance even on my aging 1.4ghz P4-mobile laptop with 512MB RAM.
So, on that laptop I have restricted user-accounts, high-performance desktop bling and background search with Linux, but Vista fails to run on it even sufficiently well even if I disable background search and bling effects? I just don't know what it is that makes Vista such a resource hog. I mean, I like XP, it is nowadays really stable and fast and work really well in most situations, Vista seems such a huge step backwards compared to it..





. OK, with desktop bling there's a lot of trial and error, I'll give you that ;P )
Member since:
2008-05-03
from the Microsoft point of view, "killer" features like desktop search or security make vista so slow. Then, who can explain to me how OSX or linux live with the same features, and are still responsive on less powerful machines?