Slashdot Mirror
Why Windows is Slow
hype7 writes "The New York Times is running an article on why they think Windows is so slow. They boil it down to one key factor - legacy support - and they hold up Apple as an example of a company willing to make hard decisions around legacy support in order to provide a better product. From the article: 'Windows is now so big and onerous because of the size of its code base, the size of its ecosystem and its insistence on compatibility with the legacy hardware and software, that it just slows everything down ... That's why a company like Apple has such an easier time of innovation.'"
Ubuntu definitely ran more quickly for me than my XP machine. Not sure where you're getting that. In fact -- I've hardly ever seen an XP machine that runs 'great'. I remember when we upgraded our windows 98 machine -- it ran amazing 650 Mhz, 128 mb RAM -- I've never seen an XP machine run as quickly as that 98 machine of mine. (Not saying it can't happen -- it's just rare.) And christ -- have you seen most manufacturer basic loads? Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. machines are frequently nearly unusuable right out of the box, because of the garbage programs that come out of the box. In fact, currently my G4 Powerbook runs (1.5 Ghz) runs more quickly than my 2 Ghz Dell with windows XP.
Insightful? I have a P2 350 with 128 MB RAM running the latest Debian, and another with the same specs running Core4. Both are more responsive than my 1.5 GHz Celeron with 512 MB RAM when it's running Windows.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
They don't mean execution speed. They mean the speed at which Microsoft makes new releases.
-Dave
RTFA -- the article is about why Windows' Vista development and Office development is slow, not why Windows XP runs slowly.
If you ask me, though, that's the right design decision. First you make a system that works according the specifications, and only after that should you worry about optimizations.
As I know that the GP post will be moded really down because of slashdot linux zealots I have to backup his statement, I use Windows XP in my HP Pavillion ZV5000 with 1024 MB of ram and I runs really good, including the Ati 9100 igp the Wifi and the modem. Oh! and the buttons to increase or decrease the volume.
I have not been able to make all those things work with ANY Linux installation out of the box, and I have tried with quite a few including FC4, Ubuntu, Mandriva and SUSE.
Who said only Microsoft could spread FUD!?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
But even stupider responses below illustrating just how many people don't read the article.
Fo those who simply refuse to RTA I will summarize, to wit: the article deals with the pace of Wiindows software releases and the recently announced delay of Vista... not the speed at which the OS loads and executes applications.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's not about windows being "slow" as in "OMG!!! SOLITARE LO4DZORZ ZLOW11!1!111!", but as in "Geepers! The Windows development cycle sure is taking its jolly time!".
Legacy support could include being able to run DOS, Win16, OS2 applications, switch to realmode to perform some BIOS functions should the need occur, etc.
l )
There's also code in place to check for old pieces of software which wouldn't otherwise work with newer versions of windows, eg:
I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.
(taken from http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.htm
These kinds of things are going to have an effect on performance, and an even greater effect on development time (windows, late again?)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
RTFA. It isn't about "slow" as in execution speed, it's about "slow" as taking a long time to come to market and introduce new features.
It's easy to ignore that "fact" since it isn't true at all.
Windows 2000 (1999)
Windows XP (2001)
Windows Server 2003 (2003)
Windows Advanced Server
Windows XP x64 (2005)
Windows Server 2003 x64 (2005)
Source
Perhaps you meant that Microsoft has not made a major tecnhology shift in over 5 years. But that would merely support the point the original poster was trying to make.
Mac OS X was released on March 24, 2001. Just because Apple gives it a new "big cat" nickname and charges you for it doesn't make it revolutionary. I've "seen what's changed in 4 years" on a Mac and I have to say it's not that much.
OMG. Are you playing that same damn stupid game the previous guy is playing. First of all HE named OS X Tiger
* Supported Computers - Power Macintosh G3, G4, G4 Cube, iMac, PowerBook G3, PowerBook G4, iBook
* RAM required - 128 megabytes of RAM recommended
- 64MB minimum (barely usable)
* Hard Drive Space - 1.5 gigabytes
- 800MB for the minimal install
Awfully close to the "minimum specs" required to run XP wouldn't you say?
I'm getting too old for this site or something, cuz no one's *thinking* any more.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
OK, there have been no *consumer* releases of Windows since 2001 (excluding XP x64, which was just a port).
Let's have a look at the consumer OS releases since the end of 2000:
Microsoft:
2001: Windows XP
2005: Windows XP x64 (a port)
Apple:
2001: Cheetah
2001: Puma
2002: Jaguar
2003: Panther
2005: Tiger
2006: Tiger x86 (a port)
Each of Apple's releases has been at least as significant as the jump from Windows 95 to 98, and possibly as significant as the jump from XP to Vista (since Vista has lost major features like WinFS). Also, each version of OS X runs faster *on the same hardware*.
Definitely don' delete IE :-)
Windows XP Embedded lets you do a thing similar to what you are describing - you can create an image only with the components you select and the tool keeps track of component dependancies so it prevents you from creating a broken image by requiring the missing dependancies.
This is where the fun starts. There are dependancies you wouldn't imagine. I wanted to create a very minimalistic XP image with basic API functionality and TCP/IP networking. Impossible. The DHCP component requires the SNMP component, which requires the HTML Help component, which requires, yes you guessed it, Internet Explorer !!!! DHCP client -> Internet Explorer : it makes perfect sense.
Then I foolishly wanted to add SP2's firweall support. The firewall required all kinds of COM and DCOM components, including Microsoft Transaction Server (!!!) or similar crap and of course Internet Explorer as well. Why, oh, why, does a network firewall require Microsoft Transaction Server ?
Of course these dependancies are not always critical - I am sure I could have deleted IE from the image and DHCP would still have worked - but nevertheless it is funny that MS claims IE is not a part of the OS, while it must be present in the simplest OS image :-)
Getting back to the subject - I definitely wouldn't use a tool like nLite - you end up with an unsupported custom version of Windows and you never know what is going to break, which service pack or update is not going to install, etc. It is not worth the hassle.
Backward compatibility is practically non existent when it comes to science software in Windows.
Heh. My wife is a scientist. Her group discovered that there was no backward compatiblity between version of Microsoft's Backup program when they tried to get archived data off of tape.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"OS X is clearly the crappier solution."
No not really.
OS X is only the crappier solution if running old apps is more important than running new apps.
All the old windows cruft going back... However long has an impact on new programs. OS Xs solution keeps all the cruft in a nice little box that can be forgotten about. The fact that older software is slightly harder to run also encourages people to port their software to the new OS and get out of the compatibility box.
OS X is the crappier solution for running old software.
Windows is the crappier solution for writing new software.
One is not clearly better than the other. Each has it's advantages and drawbacks.
As a user I like OS/Xs method. I want the latest and greatest. As a developer I like Windows method. Why you ask? Simple I don't have to port my code to the new environment to have it look right. Frankly the bar for Windows developers is much lower than Mac. You can get by with a lot less effort for a longer amount of time in Windows than the Mac.
A proper Windows98 program will look good and run well under XP and if you do things the right way under Vista as well.
That is the point of the article. Windows is being held back by all the old crap that adds complexity and makes moving forward a real pain.
Should Vista still run old dos programs? If so maybe DOS and 16 bit windows programs should be run in a VM out of the way.
The other way it is hold back innovation is that it is really easy to sit on your laurels in the Windows world. Once you are established it is hard to get bumped out of your position. It is really hard to write a much better Windows program than what is already established in the marketplace. A big change like from Dos to Windows and OS/9 to OS/X is like a fresh start. Everyone has to come up with something new and innovation can really happen.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.