Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Jul 2013 22:15 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A war between two of the major conglomerates will always have casualties, and unfortunately for us, this time we are the casualties. We aren't yet at a state where it is impossible to use Google services on Microsoft platforms, but we are moving towards a stricter ecosystem world where we might see Googlers/Gmail users on one side and Bingers/Outlook users on the other. We can only hope for the sake of technologies future and for the sake of innovation that the two companies can learn to work together in an ever expanding world of data." We can hope so, but we're talking large companies, and large companies do not care about users. Never have, never will.
Thread beginning with comment 566688
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Google on Windows 8
by Kroc on Wed 10th Jul 2013 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Google on Windows 8"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

LOL. RAM is not the issue here, Disk IO is. The more programs you have running and the more RAM they consume the more disk IO there is, like it or not. Even with an SSD, disk IO just isn't fast enough to deal with too many / bloated programs.

Keep it simple. Running as few processes as possible makes the system Real-World^tm faster and that has been the result for the last 10 years despite constant improvements in processor speed and RAM capacities.

Go ahead, get 16 GB of RAM, turn your page file off and try running 100+ processes. I can assure you a machine with 2 GB of RAM running 20 processes will _still_ be faster.

Bloated software kills performance almost regardless of any technological improvement. The only true way to be fast is to simply load less data.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Google on Windows 8
by Neolander on Thu 11th Jul 2013 06:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Google on Windows 8"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

To play the devil's advocate, this wouldn't matter so much if modern OSs were actually able to prioritize disk accesses properly, or alternatively if applications stopped performing long tasks like disk accesses in their main UI thread in a blocking fashion.

In hardware, disk seek times, which are the time intrinsically needed for a disk drive to switch from reading the data of a low-priority task to reading the data of a high-priority task, are of the order of a milisecond. So I don't buy the "hardware is too slow for multitasking" argument. If you imagine an OS optimized for responsive multitasking that would enforce a prioritization policy like "foreground tasks can get full access to system resources for up to 90% of the time, while background tasks share the remaining 10%". In such a scenario, why should the amount of background tasks matter?

Edited 2013-07-11 06:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Google on Windows 8
by oiaohm on Fri 12th Jul 2013 01:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Google on Windows 8"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

If you imagine an OS optimized for responsive multitasking that would enforce a prioritization policy like "foreground tasks can get full access to system resources for up to 90% of the time, while background tasks share the remaining 10%". In such a scenario, why should the amount of background tasks matter?


Do able using systemd under Linux. You learn that this is not quite as good as it first seams when you think about it.

The items that are background tasks include items like print ques. So you have foreground task and it now wants to print and there are too many background tasks it might fail to print completely. Why because particular model printers have time limitations on when can receive messages. Print ques are one of many examples of background tasks that you kinda need to perform reasonably well. Of course there are other tasks that really should wait until slack time appears in system.

Systemd starts addressing some of this by making like cups and other services that are not required all the time start on demand.

Really no hardware is too slow for multitasking. The question is will it grant you a quality experience.

Linux Cgroups can order priority of IO requests this is how systemd pulled it off.

There are many solutions to the hard disc reading problem for multitasking. One is more ram like a battery backed up ramdrive and having a OS able to use that ramdrive as a cache to the old school cheaper spinning media. Linux use of ram also helps.

Writing is the worst problem at times. This is a bit harder to do prioritisation on writing half a file is not good.

Reply Parent Score: 2