Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561284
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not in my experience it ain't
by ze_jerkface on Sun 12th May 2013 23:09 UTC in reply to "Not in my experience it ain't"
Member since:

You make a good point which is that it depends on which stack you are looking at.

Linux has a better selection of file systems but the video stack in quite inferior. Just ask any RHEL engineer if he would run X on a critical server. Most Windows Servers in the wild (including headless) are running a GUI and the gains from going barebones are minimal.

It also depends on what type of software you run. The MySQL developers have long maintained that their software is not optimized for Windows. Will it run poorly? No, but if you want to squeeze out every last cycle then Linux is a better choice. Is hardware a significant factor in project costs? No, it's the admin costs that matter. Cpus and RAM are dirt cheap, the average enterprise spends more annually on toilet paper. Linux cpu savings mattered a lot more a decade ago.

So it's a more complex situation than faster or slower.

But I will say that Windows Server 2012 is retarded for having forced-Metro. It's insulting really.

Reply Parent Score: 1