Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Oct 2011 23:00 UTC
Windows Ten years ago today, Microsoft launched what would become the world's most popular desktop operating system - for better or worse. Its interface colours were... Interesting (trying hard to avoid bias here, folks, bear with me now). Its early performance was... Not always entirely up to par. Its security track record was... Well, it sucked hard in that department (I tried). We're ten years down the line, and thanks to Vista, way too many people are still using this relic.
Thread beginning with comment 494354
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Performance
by Gullible Jones on Wed 26th Oct 2011 00:55 UTC
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

That is one of the major reasons people continue to use XP.

- Vista is astoundingly slow even on good hardware.

- 7 performs better but still has kind of absurd hardware requirements, and is rather expensive.

- Linux has an unfortunate inverse relationship between performance and user friendliness; e.g. KDE4 is as slow as Vista, while stand alone WMs are very fast but take some geekiness to use.

Now I'll give you that Linux with Xfce has pretty much the same performance/usability profile as XP (probably better at both, on well supported hardware). But there are other issues:

- Hardware support. Linux support for low-end graphics cards is *bad*, for example. Try any distro on something with a Via Unichrome chipset. *Everything* lags, hardware acceleration or no.

- Software support. There is a ton of specialized software for Windows that doesn't exist for Linux, and Wine cannot be depended on.

- People don't want to bother learning a whole new OS, and may just not have the time.

So I can see very well why some people stick with XP, despite its grotesquely bad default security.

Reply Score: 7

v RE: Performance
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Oct 2011 03:08 in reply to "Performance"
RE[2]: Performance
by Gullible Jones on Wed 26th Oct 2011 14:58 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23


Just buy a Linux system as you would buy a Windows system ... buy a system with Linux pre-installed for you. You will then have none of the troubles that some people have with self-installed OSes. *Nothing* lags.


1. "Buy a new computer" is a stupid, wasteful solution.

2. I have a box with Unichrome graphics, and yes, GUIs are very laggy on it in Linux - and not laggy at all in Windows. Hard to say why, though I have a hunch it's mostly down to a) bad 2D acceleration support and b) GTK2's double-buffering habit, which kills performance on older machines.

3. I know damn well how to set up X and video acceleration, and if I didn't, a distro like Ubuntu would do that for me.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Performance
by Phucked on Wed 26th Oct 2011 03:23 in reply to "Performance"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24



- Linux has an unfortunate inverse relationship between performance and user friendliness; e.g. KDE4 is as slow as Vista, while stand alone WMs are very fast but take some geekiness to use.




Oh really?

On my PII 450mhz KDE4 is much faster than XP was.

Edited 2011-10-26 03:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Performance
by Gullible Jones on Wed 26th Oct 2011 15:02 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

With what kind of graphics card, pray tell? Or are you just trolling?

Mind, I've used XP on a Thinkpad 600E with 200 MB of RAM. It wasn't exactly fast, but it was usable and didn't swap too much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Performance
by lucas_maximus on Wed 26th Oct 2011 10:18 in reply to "Performance"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Have to say I am starting to love XFCE and I am currently using it on OpenBSD. You have to read the README in the install folder ... but it is pretty nice.

I've set XFCE up similar to Windows XP ... and it is a nice desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 2