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 561334
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: This is anti-MS propaganda
by triangle on Mon 13th May 2013 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE: This is anti-MS propaganda"
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

triangle Member since:
2013-05-13

What does XP have out of the box that Linux does not?

For one, it works. That's a pretty big one. Let me elaborate.

Yes, Linux sometimes works. XP allways works and works fully. That is a huge difference. The function of an OS is to be an OS... not to supply you with a huge amount of free software. By the way, there is huge amount of free open source software for win also. Look up softpedia.

So let us compare specifically how the OS compares out of the box. I'll state 4 scenarios. All 4 scenarios will consider what the experience would if we were to install an OS today.

SCENARIO I - 10 year old computer.
---------------------------------
CPU: Athlon XP 2500+
RAM: 1 GB
Mobo: NF7 Series
GFX: Ati Radeon 8500
SND: Creative sound blaster 5.1

Current Ubuntu, Mint, etc will not work on this system. Score F-.

A legacy Linux distro will work partially on this system. Videocard will barely work and sound card will partially. However, and this is vital... because of the flawed centralized software repo scheme no new software could be used. This effectively means no security and very limited functionality/productivity. So in effect, installing a legacy distro is not an option. Score F.

Windows XP:
-Works perfectly. Everything fully functional and optimal.
-Super fast and light. Like computer was brand new!
-No junk comes with OS
-Can install any new software.
Score A.

SCENARIO II - 5-6 year old system
----------------------------------
CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.X GHZ
RAM: 3 GB
GFX: Ati 2 or 3000 series or NVIDIA 8400
SND: Creative sound blaster 5.1

New Ubuntu or Mint. With Ati shit out of luck. F-
With NVIDIA will work. Will be slow but but speed wise usable. Of course new GUI systems like unity and gnome 3 are total crap and that should be taken into account. Let's pretend classic is used. in this case the score depends highly on hardware. You are playing the hardware lotto. If run virtualized, the score is an F because the harware can't handle with enough speed the hog that Linux is.

Legacy Linux. Can't be run for sane reasons as above. No axs to new packages/software. Score F-.

Windows XP:
-Works perfectly. Everything fully functional and optimal.
-Super fast and light. Like computer was brand new!
-No junk comes with OS
-Can install any new software.
-No vitalization problems.
Score A+.

SCENARIO III - 2 Year OLD system
---------------------------------
CPU - AMD Phenom
RAM - 4GB
GFX - ATI 48XX
SOUND - Creative 6.1 or 7.1

Current Ubuntu or Mint, works but not fully. Minor isues with sound card and major issues with video card. Gaming out of the question unless you downgrade x server blah blah. Score C-.

Legacy Ubuntu or Mint. Not an option for above reasons and also pointless.

Windows XP:
-Brilliant. Everything fully functional and optimal.
-Super fast and light. Absolute speed demon.
-No junk comes with OS
-Can install any new software.
-No vitalization problems.
Score A+.

CONCLUSION
------------
One of the key functions of an OS is that is should work. Sometimes Linux does works but often it does NOT! You must play the hardware lotto. Yet it is the goal of an OS to make hardware work. So it fails at this very basic level.

Also, Linux does not age well. It is not usable with older hardware because that forces users to give up on new packages/software and security. In fact, even 2 year old hardware becomes obsolete real fast as with the Radeon 4XXX series forcing people to buy new hardware.

For hardware to work you need proper driver flexibility. Linux does not have this. Yes, this is a business issue not just an engineering issue but alas the result is the same. You are lucky to even get your hardware working. In Windows land you always have full hardware support.

In windows you can keep your software. They are not obsoleted by package updates.

Also, in the land of Windows... you can run up to date new software on old hardware.

In short Windows as an OS fulfills all the needs that an OS is supposed to fulfill. It is flexible and has long term hardware support. XP is 13 years old and is still marvelous.

I should also add that software developed for Microsoft still works for the most part in newer OS's because of the amazing backwards compatibility MS always achieves.

In short Windows has none of the problems Linux has.
With two exceptions of course, it is not free and not open source.

Edited 2013-05-13 07:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

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!


I want to add that after using my computer for a few hours yesterday, I was able to turn off the page file without having to reboot, meaning it wasn't in use (It also reported 0MB used in the page file). That is the first time that's ever happened to me in Windows.
That reminds me. I have to turn the page file back on, now that I'm nolonger defragging prior to shrinking my Windows partition.

I'm running Windows 8 with 8GB of ram. Not a small amount of ram, but not a lot, either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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