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 561353
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 Soulbender on Mon 13th May 2013 06:16 UTC in reply to "Not in my experience it ain't"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

The desktops are bloated, the graphics drivers are incomplete, and now the desktops rely heavily on the graphics drivers; guess what happens?


Are you talking about Windows?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Pardon?

Whatever else you can say about Windows, it usually has very good graphics drivers available. And the Windows desktop does not bork on those occasions when hardware acceleration is not available; I have run Win8 in Virtualbox without graphics acceleration. (Had to actually because the Virtualbox drivers for 8 were broken at the time.)

Linux OTOH is ridiculous about this stuff. All the FOSS drivers are terrible for both 2D and 3D performance, Gnome 3 requires hardware acceleration (unless you want continuous 50% CPU usage from llvmpipe), and Unity is a freaking overgrown Compiz plugin. KDE 4 also assumes good hardware acceleration for rendering widgets and stuff using Qt's native backend. The result is godawful performance.

Xfce of course actually works. But who the hell uses Xfce by default?

Reply Parent Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Linux OTOH is ridiculous about this stuff. All the FOSS drivers are terrible for both 2D and 3D performance, Gnome 3 requires hardware acceleration (unless you want continuous 50% CPU usage from llvmpipe), and Unity is a freaking overgrown Compiz plugin. KDE 4 also assumes good hardware acceleration for rendering widgets and stuff using Qt's native backend. The result is godawful performance.


Pardon?

The Linux open source drivers for ATI and Intel cards are beginning to approach, and in some cases exceed, the gaming performance of closed proprietary drivers.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_linux_april2...

For plain straightforward desktop rendering, such as with KDE/Qt, the open source FOSS drivers have been perfectly fine for a long while now. A number of years at least.

http://www.muktware.com/5194/kde-410-review-time-switch-kde

KDE 4.10 - Time To Switch To KDE

This is an important release for the KDE user-base as it not only brings massive performance enhancements but also introduces many new features.

I have been using KDE 4.10 since beta days so there was nothing to surprise me. But if you upgrade from 4.9, you will notice huge differences in speed, performance and massive improvements in almost every department.


KDE 4.10: The Fastest And Most Polished KDE Ever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fqe5ZcXJUHI

KDE 4.10 (with FOSS graphics drivers which work out-of-the-box for ATI & Intel) is arguably the fastest, slickest, most powerful, most capable and most configurable desktop available today.

You are horrendously out-of-date and misinformed if you believe that contemporary KDE/Qt has "godawful performance". "Awesome performance" would be more accurate.

Seriously, get a clue.

Edited 2013-05-13 12:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1