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 561620
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: makes sense
by lemur2 on Wed 15th May 2013 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: makes sense"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Umm what?

a) Shelling out for a new computer because of driver regressions is wasteful and stupid. Most people don't have the time, the money, or the desire to do that.

b) The open source drivers routinely suck on lots of hardware, and are also subject to horrible regressions.

c) Again, the performance of open source drivers (particularly 2D performance) tends to be pathetic.


Firstly, let me point out that the open source Linux drivers for Intel graphics are the only Linux drivers for Intel graphics.

The other major vendor with a vendor-supported open source graphics effort is AMD:

a) Wrong. The open source graphics drivers for AMD provide better legacy support.

b) Wrong. The open source drivers available with current kernels admirably cover considerably more AMD graphics chips than fglrx does.

c) Wrong. In some areas pertaining to 2D acceleration, the fglrx closed source Linux driver is marginally better than the open source driver. In other areas of 2D acceleration, however, the closed source fglrx driver is five times slower than the open source driver. The open source graphics drivers in most areas of 3D performance achieve about 80% of closed source fglrx performance, in a few areas they are further behind at about 50%, and in a few other areas they are actually 5% to 10% faster.

Your comment is, however, correct for nvidia graphics hardware. Accordingly, I do not recommend nvidia graphics hardware for use with Linux.

Edited 2013-05-15 03:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2