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 395091
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by tomcat on Tue 17th Nov 2009 19:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
Member since:

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:

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

nt_jerkface Member since:

Or those that aren't vulnerable to tech group think.

Vista vs XP on an EEEPC

I ran this test several times off cam and in some cases XP beat vista and in other cases Vista beat XP by a small margin. There was no consistent differential in score. In this particular video XP just happens to beat Vista by a few points. Overall Im surprised at how well the 900 handles Vista's overheads compared to XP

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:

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[3]: Comment by Gone fishing
by plague on Sun 22nd Nov 2009 14:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing"
plague Member since:


I've been saying this to people I know a long time and they all just respond with something similar to: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you code an OS yourself and show how it's done?" or "You just don't like it because it's trendy to not like it" or "yeah, your Linux works soooo much better, try playing [insert game] on it" or "it's not Microsofts fault [insert application or hardware] doesn't work, it's the other companys fault!".

People always contradict themselves, blaming other OS's because xyz doesn't work, despite beeing a Windows app, but then excusing Microsoft for the exact same thing, instead blaming the manufacturer of said app or hardware. And making excuses that it's up to everyone to keep up with the times and upgrade their computers, not Microsofts responsbility to make sure their software run on grandmothers toaster. Instead of admitting that an OS doesn't have to be slow and bloated and require the absolute latest hardware to run. It can be small, nimble, backwards compatible, and beautiful looking and STILL run on grandmothers toaster. It all depends on the coders, and from the market leader, I expect nothing less.

Reply Parent Score: 1