Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 13:27 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Hot on the heels of the Russians, we have another clone maker popping up, this time in fish & chips country: Freedom PC. "Powerful and versatile, environmentally friendly yet inexpensive computer systems compatible with any and all of the main operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. So YOU can decide which one to use for what YOU want to do. And we give you a choice of models, too - from the low priced and good looking office machine, the ideal choice for business, to the high powered, sleek, gaming media centre. All, with the operating system of your choice pre-installed - or none at all - at prices accessible to all." They offer various models pre-installed with Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Thread beginning with comment 364759
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fsck
Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me preface this by saying I've used every version of windows since 2.0 up until Windows 2003 / XP-64 (which is internally a server disabled, rebranded version of Win 2003). (FYI I found win98 ok, win2k terrible, XP ok, and XP-64/2003 much better on the slowdown front).

There's one huge flaw with your argument. The slow down problem by its very nature cannot happen without anything to slow it down. The problem is modern Linux distributions don't leave a fragmented database with lots of redundant entries behind, and package managers remove redundant files. Lets ignore my and a large majority of users experience of it not happening for a moment and lets be logical and ask the questions:
How is it slowing down?
What is causing it?
Why?

If it is doing so, there must be a reason, right?

We can quite easily find reasons why it happens in Windows and we can quite easily find reasons why it does not happen in other operating systems but is the reverse true? Having read your post I have been unable to find any reasoning or understanding, just misinformation.

If you uninstall a package, like say, abiword the only things left behind are text config files that only abiword reads - nothing will slow down. It theoretically cannot happen.

I cannot reiterate enough how much this will not happen due to installing and uninstalling on Linux.

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either. As far as I know this is a windows only phenomenon.

It's much easier to see why this happens when you understand how the system works.

Edited 2009-05-21 13:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Let me preface this by saying I've used every version of windows since 2.0 up until Windows 2003 / XP-64 (which is internally a server disabled, rebranded version of Win 2003). (FYI I found win98 ok, win2k terrible, XP ok, and XP-64/2003 much better on the slowdown front).

There's one huge flaw with your argument. The slow down problem by its very nature cannot happen without anything to slow it down. The problem is modern Linux distributions don't leave a fragmented database with lots of redundant entries behind, and package managers remove redundant files. Lets ignore my and a large majority of users experience of it not happening for a moment and lets be logical and ask the questions:
How is it slowing down?
What is causing it?
Why?[\q]

already answered, if you do nothing to the machine, then nothing will slow it down. Just like my win2k3 VM. If you mess with it all the time, then it will get slower as crap accumulates. All three questions answered.

It's not just the registry, it's also drivers installed by some app, and not removed by that apps setup program (clearly not Windows fault), drive fragmentation (it happens, defrag that drive once in a while) too many startup programs, full disk drives (doesn't just happen in windows, though not having a dedicated swap partition makes this much worse), huge search paths, I can go on for days...

If it is doing so, there must be a reason, right?

We can quite easily find reasons why it happens in Windows and we can quite easily find reasons why it does not happen in other operating systems but is the reverse true? Having read your post I have been unable to find any reasoning or understanding, just misinformation.

[q]If you uninstall a package, like say, abiword the only things left behind are text config files that only abiword reads - nothing will slow down. It theoretically cannot happen.


Theoretically, man can't fly either, but I am flying next week. Theoretically, nothing can travel faster than light, but quantum entanglement shows that information can.

A lot of apps do more than just add or change some config files. and sometimes, changes to config files don't go away when you uninstall an app. a networking app or an update can change the duplex setting of the NIC, instant slowdown. Theory disproved. Or, a new version of xorg comes down, and because of new features, it's a bit slower than the old version. Things like this can and do happen.

One thing I do know for sure, is that the latest kernel available for lenny, 2.6.26, seems a bit slower than the one that was distributed when Lenny was first released. I can see the difference in speed when I boot the older kernel (2.6.24, I believe) and watch the system start up, and then again in normal usage. (I have bootsplash turned off).

I cannot reiterate enough how much this will not happen due to installing and uninstalling on Linux.


I disagree, because my Lenny desktop at home proves it. The thing was damn fast when I first installed it, and after a couple of years, it is visibly slower. My Ubuntu desktop went the same way, only much quicker. I've seen it on fedora core too, but it's been a while since I used it, so I couldn't tell which version.

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either. As far as I know this is a windows only phenomenon.


Linux doesn't work like that, you scatter files and stuff all over, not as bad as windows, but it's not neat and tidy like one dir == one app.

It's much easier to see why this happens when you understand how the system works.


I understand how the system works, do you? I am speaking from personal experience, but you can go ahead and discount it, just because you haven't experienced it yourself. Perhaps you only surf the web and chatter on messenger, if that's all you use it for, then you might not notice any slowdowns either.

You haven't offered any concrete reasons why it couldn't happen, other than some muttering about only touching config files and that it "theoretically couldn't happen"

Reply Parent Score: 2

fsck Member since:
2005-07-06

already answered, if you do nothing to the machine, then nothing will slow it down. Just like my win2k3 VM. If you mess with it all the time, then it will get slower as crap accumulates. All three questions answered.

I dont see how "crap" accumulates in a system that removes all but text config files when uninstalling applications.

It's not just the registry, it's also drivers installed by some app, and not removed by that apps setup program (clearly not Windows fault)

Really? I dont have this problem on Linux, because it supports my hardware natively. No bs with scattering drivers with faulty install software all over the place and configs I cant remove easily.

drive fragmentation (it happens, defrag that drive once in a while)

First of all everything fragments - that's a desperate argument and not one fixable with software (but with flash drives when they take over). Secondly EXT3 and EXT4 have near legendary status in terms of preventing fragmentation. The problem is horrendous on ntfs. Sure it's in no way unique to windows but much worse than nearly any other file system.

too many startup programs

You can just turn them off on linux. a lot of software on windows is extremely insidious the way it integrates with the os (not Microsoft fault however they do make it easy to do so though hooks for example anti virus software)

Theoretically, man can't fly either, but I am flying next week.

Technically you're in a machine that can fly. That's just a ridiculous statement.

Theoretically, nothing can travel faster than light, but quantum entanglement shows that information can.
Just because it's not accepted with classical thinking does not mean it is false. I was pointing out the lack of basis(in argument) for your assertions with no reasoning behind how it is possible.


A lot of apps do more than just add or change some config files. and sometimes, changes to config files don't go away when you uninstall an app. a networking app or an update can change the duplex setting of the NIC, instant slowdown.

Which you can manually change without massive obfuscation like in Windows. Where some even problems are simply unfixable without just starting over (which is quite absurd when you think about it).

Or, a new version of xorg comes down, and because of new features, it's a bit slower than the old version. Things like this can and do happen.

So you literally have to resort to bugs (or regressions and hence mistakes - human error) as an example of how Windows is not unique in slow down situations? I think that proves my entire point.

One thing I do know for sure, is that the latest kernel available for lenny, 2.6.26, seems a bit slower than the one that was distributed when Lenny was first released. I can see the difference in speed when I boot the older kernel (2.6.24, I believe) and watch the system start up, and then again in normal usage. (I have bootsplash turned off).

There is a specific regression between 2.6.26 and 2.6.28 that cause this. It has already been fixed. Has anyone fixed the slow down in windows 95-98-me-2000-XP-Xp64-2003 ? No.

I disagree, because my Lenny desktop at home proves it. The thing was damn fast when I first installed it, and after a couple of years, it is visibly slower.

Likely the previously mentioned regression which has been fixed is the cause (there is an article on Phoronix about it if you're interested

My Ubuntu desktop went the same way, only much quicker. I've seen it on fedora core too, but it's been a while since I used it, so I couldn't tell which version.

I'm currently(and primarily) a fedora user fyi. Not experienced that.

Linux doesn't work like that, you scatter files and stuff all over, not as bad as windows, but it's not neat and tidy like one dir == one app.
That is why I said mac. Mac is not Linux. As mentioned before linux does not have this problem either due to effective package management.

I understand how the system works, do you?

You don't seem to know about the differences in file systems, mention already fixed bugs as a problem while ignoring endemic problems in software design that has been available (and unfixed) for years(registry, no effective software management system) and seem to be confusing Mac and Linux.

I am speaking from personal experience, but you can go ahead and discount it, just because you haven't experienced it yourself.

That's not my intention. I'm saying: If there is a problem explain where it is, what is causing it and how it is possible because it doesn't seem to be one that effects more than a small minority. For all I know it could be anything from poor hardware choices to faulty ram to some huge architectural problem but nothing verifiable is given to back up any statements - completely unfounded.

Perhaps you only surf the web and chatter on messenger, if that's all you use it for, then you might not notice any slowdowns either.

I'm currently writing a book, I play games every now and then(modern), I used to be an IT Consultant and do a lot of software development, dvd authoring, I'm currently on a graphic design course and have a lot of high end audio applications. I do other things too and if you had commented on Linux being deficient in some of those areas I would certainly agree but there seems to be nothing behind your statements other than just claims.

You haven't offered any concrete reasons why it couldn't happen, other than some muttering about only touching config files and that it "theoretically couldn't happen"

Except for the whole system of installation/uninstallation and isolated storage of config data I suggest you read my post again.
Ah so you're using the "Prove god doesn't exist" argument? I can see i've wasted my time then.

Edited 2009-05-21 17:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either.


Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.

Reply Parent Score: 2

fsck Member since:
2005-07-06


Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.

Heh. I'm not and have never been a Mac user so I made sure to preface with "afaik". The package management systems (and repository systems) may have their faults.....but when they work well - they work very well. Makes me glad to be a Linux user. I find it a bit strange Apple would lack any uninstall facility for pkg files, doesn't seem to be aligned with their "make everything intuitive" ethos.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either.

Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.


Well, it is true Mac OS X cannot provide uninstaller for all kind of apps. It is not very common for Mac applications to start installing things on first run, especially extensions and services. But it is not the point, those apps exist. Microsoft Office is one of them, for example.

With pkg there are mixed feelings. Originally pkg were provided just to be installers of system updates or Applications ported from UNIX and developer should write uninstallers. But most don't. Nevertheless if you run the installer again and you go the menu File and hit the Show files item... You can see what it installed where and how. You might see though, that many places are hidden files and places very UNIX like. Then you have to remove it by hand and terminal.

Apple expects, or hopes people update all the Apps to work as Apple intend, but it is very difficult. Especially with multi-platform applications, because obvious reasons.

However, the slowdown in Macintosh might not be related to that. I have seen, for example, that after security patches the system tends to get slower... I do not know, but it seems the team that makes the first release it is not the same team that updates the systems, so maybe they are screwing things around without knowing it.

Also, I have seen Mac OS X relies a lot on having a hard disc empty. I mean, having a hard disc with more than 60% filled is terrible. It might be that the file system is not as good as others out there, or the defragmentation on the fly technique does not have space to work.

Sometimes, the best way to use Mac OS X is just like any other UNIX, I mean, just create a new account and see if the the thing is related to it and don't use administrator rights on the accounts.

Reply Parent Score: 1