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 561321
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: This is anti-MS propaganda
by ba1l on Mon 13th May 2013 03:08 UTC in reply to "This is anti-MS propaganda"
ba1l
Member since:
2007-09-08

I honestly don't even know where to start with this...

Test 1... Yep, sounds fair. Those versions of Linux are probably six years newer than that hardware, while XP is six years older and was designed for much weaker hardware. Would comparing with Windows 8 not be a more fair comparison?

As for test 2, what exactly do you think you're measuring? Most VM hosts support Windows better than anything else, and provide fast (enough) video acceleration on Windows guests but generally not Linux guests. Surely a better comparison would be to run then on real hardware, but there really won't be much of a difference. Anything remotely recent is many times faster than either OS requires. Windows might be slightly faster as a desktop OS, but Linux is hardly slow or bloated.

Reply Parent Score: 3

triangle Member since:
2013-05-13

Fair enough.

Windows 8 would not be a better choice than XP in my opinion. In terms of date, your point is well taken but I would argue that "functionality" is the key concept. For a given functionality what overhead is there? Today's Ubuntu and Mint (some of the most pop distros and my fav also) are not yet on the same level of functionality as Windows XP. XP is far superior imo. If it came down to debate, it would not be hard to defend this point... even though I know it sound provocative. At the same time, Windows 7/8 is not much slower than XP if at all... so we could do as you say...but Win 7/8 require more ram than 1GB. I suppose it comes down to ideology. It is easy for us to set the date as the defining point. Functionality is a debatable sticking point. The major thing in my mind, is that XP is still modern in the sense that I can get drivers for XP even for modern computers (let's say if i wanted to build one). On the other hand, if I built a computer today, I would have to use bleeding edge Linux just to have a chance to run Linux. So in this respect, I think XP vs LinuxCurrent is fair game. Also, because of the centralised software scheme in Linux land, one is forced to use a relatively new distro. It is not like I can use an 8 year old Linux distro on the Athlon and be productive and secure.

As far as the second test goes, I have ran those OS's on bare metal on those systems. Linux is noticeably slower. I mentioned virtualization because there the additional overhead makes the difference even more obvious. As far as VM bias towards windows... VirtualBox does not bias towards Microsoft products.

Edited 2013-05-13 03:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I guess I'll feed the troll....

Seriously, what functionality does Windows XP have "Out of the Box" that any of the mint/Ubuntu Linux distributions don't have?

The only thing XP has going for it out of the box is Paint, Notepad, Wordpad, IE and Outlook Express.
Oh, maybe I'm missing solitaire and minesweeper....
Oh, you can search for files, and regular file management stuff. But what else?

Any Linux distribution (yes even from the days when XP came out) had more applications and a full office suite by doing the default desktop install.

Here's some anecdotal evidence to support the opposite of what you're saying.

This was a few years back, but my sister's friend had a crappy eMachine, which had a motherboard go bad. I tried to find a replacement, but unfortunately ordered her one that used PC133 memory, of which I only had a 128mb stick. Ubuntu (I think it was 8.04) ran on it, but slowly. OpenOffice loaded in about 5 minutes! Exact same hardware, dual booting with Windows Xp took about 10 minutes to load OpenOffice!

So you can berate Linux all you want, but the truth of the matter is that it still has leaps and bounds better memory management than Windows does. Ever look at your memory usage on Windows? I can pretty much guarantee that it's using Page file, even though it still has physical memory. I NEVER see this on Linux. We buy RAM for a reason, Microsoft... fix your damn memory management!

Reply Parent Score: 5

ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

Today's Ubuntu and Mint (some of the most pop distros and my fav also) are not yet on the same level of functionality as Windows XP. XP is far superior imo.


I wouldn't agree with either of those two points.

If you exclude "runs Windows applications" as a feature (if that's what you want to do, just use Windows), I can't really think of anything Windows XP has that current (or even older) Linux distributions don't. Certainly nothing that I use.

I don't really consider Windows XP to be viable anymore, unless you're running on very old hardware that can't run Windows 7 well (or at all).

When using a Windows XP machine, there are plenty of things I miss from Linux. And Windows 7. And Mac OS X, for that matter. It just feels like an antique to me at this point.

As far as the second test goes, I have ran those OS's on bare metal on those systems. Linux is noticeably slower. I mentioned virtualization because there the additional overhead makes the difference even more obvious.


From my experience, that's usually a problem with the graphics drivers (nVidia's drivers, in the case I'm thinking of), but I've had no such problems in years.

It's hard to know what you mean by "slow" anyway. Unless there's a graphics card issue (dropping back to software rendering because you're in a VM will pretty much do that), I can't think of any way that Linux feels slower than Windows. Not on anything I've used in a very long time.

Reply Parent Score: 4