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 494524
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: A great OS
by BeamishBoy on Thu 27th Oct 2011 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: A great OS"
BeamishBoy
Member since:
2010-10-27

PC hardware performance does not degrade as it ages. A 2 GHz clock is still 2 Ghz 10 years later on. 7500 rpm is still 7500 rpm.

Only software degrades ...


Speaking from personal experience, none of this is true.

As an example, I work at an algo-trading fund; since speed is so important to what we do, we use hardware TCP to handle our data feeds from electronic markets. Over the course of a year or two there's a measurable decrease in the performance of the hardware that necessitates changing it out for new components.

This occurs in many other types of hardware too: a recent example occurred (http://bit.ly/hEzHl5) when Intel pulled their 6-series chipsets due to time degredation of SATA ports. Note that the chipsets wouldn't fail outright; instead, as the hardware degraded, the error rates would simply increase to unacceptable levels.

Edited 2011-10-27 00:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: A great OS
by lemur2 on Thu 27th Oct 2011 02:10 in reply to "RE[12]: A great OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Speaking from personal experience, none of this is true.


Speaking from personal experience, if a piece of digital electronics passess acceptance test with a certain performance, and it still passes all functional tests years later (i.e. the hardware components are not faulty), then it will also still pass all performance tests.

Digital electronics either work, or fail. On or off. Go or No go. There is no "maybe".

As an example, I work at an algo-trading fund; since speed is so important to what we do, we use hardware TCP to handle our data feeds from electronic markets.

a recent example occurred (http://bit.ly/hEzHl5) when Intel pulled their 6-series chipsets due to time degredation of SATA ports. Note that the chipsets wouldn't fail outright; instead, as the hardware degraded, the error rates would simply increase to unacceptable levels.


This implies transmissions over a cable. Analogue.

Edited 2011-10-27 02:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[14]: A great OS
by BeamishBoy on Thu 27th Oct 2011 02:59 in reply to "RE[13]: A great OS"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

Speaking from personal experience, if a piece of digital electronics passess acceptance test with a certain performance, and it still passes all functional tests years later (i.e. the hardware components are not faulty), then it will also still pass all performance tests. Digital electronics either work, or fail. On or off. Go or No go. There is no "maybe".

This implies transmissions over a cable. Analogue.


Deary me. In spite of the criticism you've received in this thread, I was willing to assume in good faith that you knew at least a little bit about how computer hardware actually works. It turn out, however, that you clearly don't have the faintest fucking idea what you're talking about.

What's even more depressing is that you appear to have spent 6158 posts on OSNews to get to this stage...

Reply Parent Score: 1