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 561326
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I didn't provide any 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:

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

triangle Member since:

Yes, that is exactly it.

What I said are facts because I KNOW them to be. I know what you said is not true. I know what I know. This is how the world works. People state their observations. If we want to take it to the level of science.... that is how science works also. I have stated my claim. I have stated my methodology. It is up to those that care to repeat the experiments and find who is telling the truth.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Alfman Member since:

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

triangle Member since:


The thread title is "Windows slower than other operating systems". It is not "Windows kernel is slower than Linux kernel" nor is it "Windows i/o is slower than Linux i/o".

It is most definitely Anti-Microsoft propaganda that flies in the face of reality.

If it said "Microsoft s****** up by removing the start menu" I wouldn't criticize. But slower than Linux and getting worse? Give me a break. Total BS.

On top of that, Linux is barely usable to begin with. People kind of look past that because the bar is set so low in the land of Linux. Any BS that can make the alternative look bad is welcome propaganda. Can you ever see a soccer mom recompiling a Linux kernel so her kid can play Minecraft or some other game because they just bought a new gfx card? When soccer moms start doing things like that on mass Linux will go from 1% market share to be the dominant desktop system.

Reply Parent Score: 0