Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Nov 2009 16:13 UTC
Windows Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference is currently under way, and as usual, the technical fellows at Microsoft gave speeches about the deep architecture of Windows - in this case, Windows 7 of course. As it turns out, quite some seriously impressive changes have been made to the very core of Windows - all without breaking a single application. Thanks to BetaNews for summarising this technical talk so well.
Thread beginning with comment 395070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Gone fishing
by Gone fishing on Tue 17th Nov 2009 17:55 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Vista found itself managing systems with more than 64 total cores.


and

In fact, they were making investments in quad-core systems earlier in Vista's lifecycle than originally anticipated


So Vista is dog slow because it can't cope with 64 cores or even 4. Well I wish my box had 64 cores, which it doesn't - why then is it dog slow with two cores or even one - in fact why is it dog slow?

This feels like an explanation of the form, if you can't baffle them with science baffle them with bull shit.

Oh just installed Windows 7 and other than drivers being a big problem it is quite nice, quite fast, quite responsive - its OK.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by tomcat on Tue 17th Nov 2009 19:00 in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

So Vista is dog slow because it can't cope with 64 cores or even 4.


Look, Vista isn't the best OS that MS has ever produced, but it does function OK. Saying that "it can't cope with ... even 4" cores is a little over the top. The point of the article is that concurrency was a bigger problem with Vista because of lock contention. That contention has been reduced in Win7 by making locking more fine-grained; thus, making each of the cores more efficient, since they more time doing productive work and less time waiting around for locks to clear. If anything, your Vista box will be more efficient with one or two cores than 64 because of the lower lock contention; as you add cores, you increase contention and, in turn, reduce throughput through the global lock. These changes will primarily make the kernel more scalable (as the article points out).

Edited 2009-11-17 19:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I was just quoting the article - However, my point is I don't think its just multiprocessor support that makes Vista dog slow. I use it on a dual core and it’s awful.

Folk complained about ME, compared to Vista ME looks like a good deed in a naughty world - admittedly the underlying technology in Vista might have been a step forward but the user experience is miserable.

MS apologists might like to say Vista isn’t that bad – if you run it on a quad core with 8 gig of ram it’s OK – it isn’t it’s awful something that MS will soon wish to forget. If MS had any decency they would make upgrades from Vista to Windows 7 almost free.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by Laurence on Wed 18th Nov 2009 10:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Look, Vista isn't the best OS that MS has ever produced, but it does function OK.


I'm sorry, but just "functioning OK" isn't good enough when the company in question is the most profitable software house on Earth, Vista is (was) your flagship OS and you're the run-away market leader for desktop OSs.

In situations like that, i'd expect the OS to function briliantly rather than just "OK" compared to some free OSs.

But then maybe I expect too much from my market leaders?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by cb88 on Tue 17th Nov 2009 19:02 in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

Watch AROS warm boot ... then you won't think it is ok anymore and yes 3D support is coming to hobby OSes and with that... commercial games

Reply Parent Score: -1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Just like all those commercial games that show up on OS X and Linux?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by testman on Tue 17th Nov 2009 22:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

AROS doesn't even have memory protection. I may as well compare it to the boot-time of my Commodore 64.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by cb88 on Wed 18th Nov 2009 15:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

I see the windows fanboys don't like my comment... sheesh

Is is not a fact that every OS except perhaps AROS and Haiku are ridiculously slow to boot?

I have only installed Haiku myself but Those videos of AROS were mind boggling.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by rockwell on Wed 18th Nov 2009 20:35 in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//which it doesn't - why then is it dog slow with two cores or even one - in fact why is it dog slow? //

Umm ... becuase you f--ked it up somehow, or your hardware is cheap-ass shit?

My old Pentium D box runs Vista plenty fast.

Reply Parent Score: 2