Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:17 UTC
Windows More news on Windows 8. This time around, Gabe Aul, a director of program management in Windows, blogged about the changes Microsoft has made to Windows 8's boot process. The results are impressive - a boot time not much slower than waking from sleep on current Windows 7 and Mac OS X machines. This is, of course, a vital component of getting Windows NT ready for tablets.
Thread beginning with comment 489217
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:34 UTC in reply to "They always promise this"
Member since:

Windows' I/O scheduler is just really awful. I mostly use Linux but use Windows at work and was amazed by the ever-present disk grinding and slow processing on any day when Symantec was scheduled to run a full scan. It's priority is set to as low as possible, but still everything takes at least 4 times as long (no exaggeration here, I've timed it).

After reading LWN one day and seeing a quote from a Linux kernel dev saying, basically, "If telling all your I/O heavy software to go all at once is ever slower than telling it to run in sequence, that's a kernel bug and we want to fix it," I realized that the reason this slowness bothered me on Windows is that I don't see it nearly as badly under Linux... and that the Windows I/O scheduling system must just be bad.

After that I removed all startup items from the registry and start menu and replaced them with a single batch file. In this file I inserted explicit sleeps of approximately the amount of time (as recorded by me) that I/O-heavy tasks would take to start up. Doing this, I found, improved overall startup time noticeably.

Verdict: Windows (at least up to the latest Vista) is so poorly written that 'manually' hinting to the I/O system dramatically improves performance. Who's surprised?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:

Cut it with this crap ... You read on a site that is pro-Linux that Windows was doing something wrong ... That isn't evidence that is propaganda.

Your problem was that anything by Symantec is a pile of crap.

Funnily enough I can run a Disk Scan (complete) with MSE and I was playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution at the same time and never even experienced a slow down in framerate.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:

Now now, be nice.

I didn't spout off ridiculous "ME TOO"isms. I am relating my experiences and data I collected by observation over the course of many months. Symantec AV is pretty crap as well, of course, and this made things worse on days when it was running, but the overall effect was not altered. Just to be very clear: I observed the same pattern of slowness and speedup even without symantec grinding the disks horribly.

You read on a site that is pro-Linux that Windows was doing something wrong ... That isn't evidence that is propaganda.

I'd like to address this point specifically, because you greatly misunderstand me. I read on LWN a Linux kernel developer talking about **LINUX**. In his opinion Linux has a bug if it cannot cope better with "A bunch of IO heavy tasks started simultaneously" than it can with "The same tasks started in sequence." He was saying that Linux should do better than the user, always, in scheduling IO or it's a bug in Linux. He never mentioned Windows.

What **I** did was begin thinking about the differences in the way I observed Linux and Windows reacting to disk contention, which lead me to run some experiments, which lead me to the conclusion that I began with above: Windows sucks at scheduling IO.

Edited 2011-09-12 20:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2