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 561318
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh really? Maybe you are too brain washed to think for yourself.


Already with the personal insults?

You heard Linux is fast and you actually believe it.


No, I know it's fast and so is Windows. Which one is "faster"? I don't know and I don't care. On any reasonably modern computer both are fast enough.

Facts mate... facts. The truth will set you free.


You didn't really provide any but here's my personal experience:
I have run Ubuntu 12.10 on a old laptop with a crummy Intel gm855 video card and only 768Mb RAM and it was perfectly usable. GUI operations did certainly not take minutes. I also have it on a 2Ghz dual-core with Intel HD graphics and 4Gb RAM and it's just as fast as Windows. In fact, Ubuntu is a bit snappier but since the Windows is factory Lenovo the difference might not be Windows fault.

Edited 2013-05-13 03:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

triangle Member since:
2013-05-13

I didn't provide any facts...eh? Deny reality much? The post is in front of you full of facts. Facts are facts even when you don't like the facts. Methodology is in front of you. Run the tests. I have... Ubuntu 12 is certainly too slow for the systems I described. Don't tell me it was "OK for you". BS. It is absolutely unusable. In fact, I'll add to my previous post another fact for you to ignore.
I have a relatively modern phenom system. Guess what? I can't use Ubuntu 13 or Mint 14 because... I need to buy new hardware. My Radeon 4850 is no longer supported. Yes, I can use the open source driver but then I can't play games and don't have full axel. Or I can downgrade X server to some obsolete version. I tell you... this Linux thing is awesome. In windows land updates don't make hardware obsolete. In Linux land, you play the driver lotto hoping that your hardware works and when it does you pray that something doesn't break things the next update. Absolute garbage of an OS. Why do you think something FREE and so awesome can't get past 1% of market share? Because it is so much better than Windows, right? I tell you, Linux today isn't even on the level of Windows 95 with respect to functionality. I would love it if Linux was great... but reality matters to me.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I see. Your personal experiences are facts while mine are bullshit and lies. How convenient.

You just continue digging that grave for yourself, it's rather entertaining.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Well, if the article was anti-MS propaganda, then your posts have more than overcompensated with a large helping of anti-linux propaganda. ;)


Just one point though, there is a difference between "facts" and "anecdotal evidence". You could conduct systematic benchmarks and post them to provide a much better context for a serious & interesting discussion. But as is, this thread is just an angry rant.

Reply Parent Score: 3