Resorting to FUD Hurts the Alternatives to Microsoft
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:28 UTC
Editorial Does Windows 7 contain more DRM than Windows Vista? Does Windows 7 limit you from running cracked applications, and will it open the firewall specifically for applications that want to check if they're cracked or not? Does it limit the audio recording capabilities? According to a skimp and badly written post on Slashdot, it does. The Slashdot crowd tore the front page item apart - and rightfully so.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 94 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/g7e
Thread beginning with comment 349739
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"This means that Vista's DRM would consume even more of a percentage of the CPU's performance as the CPU performance gets less. A sort of a double-whammy effect. This is, IMO, a significant source of the popular reports of dreadful performance of Vista.
There is a small hole in your logic though. The article states (and I think it is safe to assume) that Windows 7 contains the same amount of DRM than Vista does... maybe even more? If that is indeed the case, and the source of Vista's sluggishness is the DRM, then how does Windows 7 manage to be so much faster than Vista, when 7 has the same amount of DRM as Vista? Perhaps maybe they removed some of the DRM in 7? ;) Highly doubtful. In regard to the anti-Windows camp, I remember there were some discussions on this very site before Vista was released that indicated you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached. That's ok though, because when claims like that are made, we can see right through them. "

A minor tweak in the polling routine might have a very significant impact. For example, if the polling routine first up checked if there was ANY HD-capable drvier installed, and exited straight away if not, rather than checking for the physical presence of any of many possible types of HD-capable hardware ... perhaps in the case of low-end machines such a change might hav had a significant impact?

I don't know ... I'm just speculating. The point is though that I can see a possibility that such an optimisation, or some close equivalent, might have indeed been possible. One can't after all put HD video through the machine if one hasn't installed any HD-capable drivers.

Furthermore, it wasn't until after Vista came out, and netbooks became popular, that there was any incentive to try to make Vista work on lower-spec devices. The big-corporation idea for some while up to the release of Vista, after all, seemed to be to persue an endless upgrade cycle ... consuming ever more CPU, RAM, disk and Watts of power on every spiral.

Edited 2009-02-19 01:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1