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.'"
Steve Jobs made the decision to move to a robust, open framework, using the a MACH kernel.
While it may have broken some legacy applications, they can still run under emulation - all new applications run much faster then their windows counterparts.
Its about time Bill Gates realised Vista is fundamentally broken, copy Apple (again) and port the win32 API over to *BSD.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Windows Vista is coming out as a 're-write' of the code, but I don't believe they are recoding the real legacy parts of the Windows code. I think Microsoft needs to do away with native legacy support like Apple did, but keep it around with emulation. If WINE can reverse engineer the Windows layer, than why can't Microsoft, with access to the source?
--sig fault--
But this doesn't seem to do anything to address the core Windows problem; Windows is too big and too complex
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP ProfessionalPC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space
Mac OS X Version 10.4 requires a Macintosh with:
PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
At least 256MB of physical RAM
At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
Nice try, but Apple and Linux have far more complex operating systems that don't slow to a crawl every time you click a mouse.
And a crucial reason Microsoft holds more than 90 percent of the PC operating system market is that the company strains to make sure software and hardware that ran on previous versions of Windows will also work on the new one
They fail to mention that their use of the word "software" only applies to M$ products. Legacy support for other applications is still as flawed as it is on any OS. Either way, Apple does come out with universal binaries and Rosetta support to solve these issues. Also, Apple lets you run OS X in "Classic Mode" as long as you have OS 9 installed in order to support legacy apps.I personally think Windows' biggest flaw is its file paging. Its done so poorly that it'll eat up your memory in a flash. Then you're sitting there for 2 minutes listening to your hard drive going crazy trying to copy it all.
And that is an excellent graphic in the article of a very confused Gates.
--
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
The issue is deeper: OS X was designed to make the best operating system possible for users. Windows was designed to be the best operating system possible for extending Microsoft's monopoly. And the horrific problems plaguing Windows (the Registry, gaping security holes, malware, etc.) are all a reflection of the resulting fundamental design flaws.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
well, try installting a year 2000 distribution on the stated hardware... works pretty fast doesn't it?
Boot time again, try to compare hybernation not boottime. http://www.suspend2.net/ for Linux...
I mean: apples and oranges anyone?
And don't support legacy hardware or code base !
The problem is elsewhere !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
I can run 10 year old binaries yet my system is no slower.
Come on mods, you can't mod something as 'troll' just because you disagree with it, that's not what 'troll' is for!
I use Win2K on my laptop (servers run linux - keeping windows away from them!) and I have absolutely no problem with it's speed.
Yes, I'm using 2K not XP. XP, I do find slow. Not in it's actual "doing stuff" speed, but the fact that you get so many "are you sure?" warnings and "yes, really / um, maybe not" dialog boxes, that it slows things right down.
And most of the time, on equal hardware, windows DOES feel more responsive than a linux desktop. Of cause, IRQ/threading issues can mean that a windows machine may seem to be slowed down greater when using slower devices (eg, getting something from CD/network/USB etc in an explorer window can mean you lose responsiveness of the whole taskbar/start menu), but at the same time, windows seems to handle losing a mounted network share much better than linux (in mine and by the sounds of it, many others experience).
The gap's certainly closing from both sides performance wise... if you want to have a go at how slow Windows is, let's all point at it's development/release time. Lagacy support, it's huge codebase etc, all play a role here.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
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.
It's easier to make hard decisions such as these, when there is only a small number of people using the legacy products & a even smaller number who aren't willing to upgrade.
Plus, IMHO, amongst corporate users, I think much smaller percentage of companies
have custom apps running on the Apple Machines.
(who cares when, it will be awesome anyway)
Man, that is a Microsoft Weenie comment if I ever heard one. Didn't Microsoft stock drop over 2.7 percent when they announced that Vista would be late? Someone cares.
Too bad you posted as AC - I thought this was great.
;-)
You're absolutely correct - my personal opinion is that if you don't use it at least once a week it has no business in your system tray. Reminds me of the guy who drives around all summer with half a dozen bags of sand in his trunk because he might need them next winter - and then complains about performance
Computing resources are limited resources - the more crap you have running on startup the worse your machine's gonna run. For me the most intrusive (and offensive) of these programs is RealMedia's player. That damn thing puts hooks everywhere.
On legacy hardware - I have a 300MHz Thinkpad i1400 that I rescued from my mother-in-law and replaced the dead 4gb hard drive with a 40gb drive with an 8 mb cache. Increased RAM to 256mb and tried to install no less than seven Linux distributions. I'm comfortable in both Linux and Windows and my mail/web/irc server runs FC4.
Anyway, I installed FC4 and the current releases of Slackware, SuSE, Ubuntu, DSL, Puppy Linux and Vector Linux. None of the installations went without pain - mainly because of the opl3sa2 sound card and NeoMagic video. The only distribution where I had all the hardware working at the same time was with Vector Linux (damn nice distribution, BTW) - but the 2.6 kernel would crash on shutdown and the 2.4 kernel didn't like my soundcard. Fortunately almost all distributions saw my wireless card and that part worked flawlessly.
So - after much pain I installed Windows XP from CD and Service Pack 2 from my USB flash drive. Popped in the WLAN card (had to obtain and install a driver for it) and everything works.
I'm a big fan of xfce as a window manager - lotsa features and reasonably fast but not as bloated as KDE or Gnome. Sorry, guys - but XP ran circles around any Linux distribution I installed.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I was thinking about this, and it basically boils down to a simple proposition:
People buy Macs to run OS X
People buy Windows PCs to run Applications
Because of this Apple has a lot more leeway on compatibility. They can break every application there is, but the users will still be happy as long as OS X and Apple apps continue to run. If Microsoft breaks Windows application support, they've removed the main reason people run Windows in the first place. (Maybe there is a hardcore 2% of Windows lovers out there, but apps are what counts for the vast 90% of the market.)
The other issue is that Apple is heavily consumer-based and therefore can totally focus on quick-turnarounds and user-centric features. For example, there's been various complaints over the years about poor I/O speeds on OS X. This hasn't been a huge priority for Apple to fix because frankly they don't sell that many corporate server systems. Much better to put those resources into developing 'widgets' or something the end user can see. Microsoft has to spread out resources across Server systems, Tablets, Media Centers, Corporate Desktops, Consumer Desktops, etc etc, so that Windows is the single solution for every problem.
The end result is that OS X is a pretty damn nice solution for the home or SOHO user. But whether Apple's approach would work for the market as a whole? Don't think so.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Both are more responsive than my 1.5 GHz Celeron with 512 MB RAM when it's running Windows.
You should check out Windows XP for Dummies
I've used all 3 of those for years and find your statement very funny. A P2 350 with 128M of RAM loaded with comparable functioning apps is never going to be more responsive. Booting up, loading Gnome/KDE and Openoffice alone is going to take like 4 minutes on that thing. Now if you're saying it's more responsive booting up into init 3, I can get DOS to load faster than your P2 350 with 128M RAM on a 486DX4 with 4 meg of RAM. AND it'll be more responsive (notice I'm leaving out which functions will be faster)
It's all about perspective and I happen to make a living delving deep into both sides.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
> M$ is primarily marketing body. While Apple's Jobs understands that it's engineers who are making products
So Apple isn't about marketing? *laughs* if anything it's about a company that's turned marketing into a religion, so much so that it gets fanboys to rave about a $99 leather case the day it's released.
Go somewhere random
Interestingly, I've found Apple to be very willing to integrate backwards and forwards support in their OS
I know everything must be wonderful in Apple Land, but the compatibility issue is nowhere as good as Windows.
The fact is that if you buy a new Intel Mac, it runs no pre-OS X software which is only 5 years old. Virtually all Windows software from 2000-1 still runs without any issues. The Mac situation is OS for most consumer users, but for larger shops, the "upgrade-cycle" can become an issue.
Your entire post seems to be "spin" to me.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Judging from the posts on this story (almost all of which are debates about system performance), we can draw the scientific conclusion that less than 3% of slashdot commenters actually bother to RTFA.
Ah, I love the smell of MS-fanboi in the morning.
Try installing latest Fedora Core, SUSE, or Ubuntu, and not only will the space they take up greatly exceed that of a proper Windows 2000/XP install
Does Windows come with an Office Suite? CD Burning software? Image editing software? A development IDE? A variety of games? How about vector graphics software? Or a database?
What do you think takes up those 5 CDs in the SuSE install? The kernel?
, but they will be much slower, because while hardware advanced, Linux still uses technology from 20 years ago to talk with the graphics card (X11),
Those who do not understand X11 are doomed to reinvent it, poorly. X11 is a high speed, fully network transparent architecture. The Xfree86 people let it languish on the vine, but the Xorg fork has gotten things into gear again, and we're seeing the API move forward at a breakneck pace. Xorg 7.0 is really far more sophisticated than anything else on the market, including WGF/DirectX 10 or whatever MS is calling it, and even my beloved OS X's Aqua/Quartz.
Don't underestimate the extensibility of Xorg, and don't underestimate its performance. It's a lean, mean, high-performance and full featured windowing environment.
still lacks kernel audio mixing
Bzzzt.... dmix runs at the kernel level. Modern linux distributions enable it by default for all users. You can turn it off if you want lower latency audio. AFAIK, you have to call dmix from userspace, but the plugin is running directly "on the metal" of the alsa subsystem.
still lacks in PnP department (removing a "mounted" USB flash stick anyone?)
Huh? Go to media:// (or click on the "Desktop" icon in Gnome, or click on the "Drives" icon in KDE, or go to the file browser). Right-click on the USB stick icon. Press "Eject" in the context menu.
Nay, Windows lacks in the PnP department. What the _hell_ is this concept of drivers, where I have to log in as administrator to install new hardware on my system? On Linux, I just plug it in, and the device node just appears, be it USB stick, WLAN card, ethernet card, or whatever. With a proper desktop environment I get a nice little pop-up asking if I want to configure it.
Oh, and Windows is braindead in the filesystem support department, as well. NTFS, and FAT32 are NOT enough for everyone's needs. Some people use modern journaling filesystems. Some people need to access HFS+ (that's the OS X file system). Some people need to access a wide variety of filesystems (don't forget the commercial UNIXes, which have a substantial marketshare in the server/workstation market). Perhaps someday MS will find the cash to hire a few more developers, and maybe even add a filesystem driver or two. Then again, given the ugly nature of the Windows Driver Model, this might not happen.....
still has abysmal support for various multimedia devices (no, the few tens reverse-engineered audio/video capture/etc drivers don't really count), etc etc
This one is half true. Unless, of course, your a professional, and use firewire. Firewire, of course, works perfectly. I capture whatever I want directly from my HDV camcorder, or from my cable box. Oh, and my ATI and Happenhauge TV tuners work out-of-box, too. Without installing drivers.
But yes, you do have to be careful with what capture cards you purchase on Linux. Stick with good name brand stuff, however, and you'll do okay. Sorry if your crap-o-matic generic capture card doesn't work; shell out the $35 to go get a supported one. Here is a short list to get you started. None of these require drivers; they are integrated into the kernel. You can get other stuff that's not integrated into the kernel, but I wouldn't recommend messing with that.
Sadly, ATI and Nvidia have not released their VIVO (All-in-wonder) drivers for Linux yet. Both have committed to do so, however. All-in-wonder and VIVO (nvidia) support are avaliable, but only for older card
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
On a brand new laptop with Win XP installed by manufacturer (HP), my hibernate often does not work and I am left with the boot option of "discard saved settings/data and reboot"
So, saying Windows has well working hibernation is a farce in my experence.
I know there is a strong Linux v. Windows arguement, but what I think it really comes down to is that Microsoft people don't have a clear goal with their OS anymore. I think they should refocus on clear, simple, usability and security rather than 3D windows.
Linux, FreeBSD, MacOSX and Windows XP all just tools and some are better at some task than other. Windows XP is more than useable and will run on just about any x86 beyond a PPro, and in my experince its faster than linux on the desktop. On this little laptop for example, a PII366 /w 128megs of ram, windows XP is slightly faster running apps like firefox and will play mpeg2 video in vlc while under linux it chokes. Windows on x86 hardware is better for multimedia and gaming.
Windows XP is usually slow because people install all kinds of spyware and other junk. In my experince antivirus software is worse than the malware its trying to keep out. It slows computers to a crawl. I've used windows on and off since win3.1 and I have never used antivirus software. I got one bootsector virus back in the day and the msblaster worm a few years ago. It just comes down to having a hardware firewall(well just NAT) and not using outlook, IE, word or hotmail. Basicly MS OS + MS APP = trouble !
Linux is great on server where you need the latest and greatest, *BSD where you need alittle more stablity and security. I'd never trust a closed OS wide open on the internet.
Personally I think Linux on the home desktop is a lost cause, there is no real advantage anymore. Windows XP is secure enough and has far better hardware suppport. Alot of the FOSS that was orginally written for linux usually runs on winxp, if not better on winxp. Firefox, thunderbird, vlc, ethereal, the gimp, etc... I'm yet to install linux on a machine and have everything just work. I'm also getting really sick of reading somewhere that something is suppored and then when I go to use it, its not finshed, missing features, unstable or just dosn't work at all.
You start putting linux on the desktop's of the general public and its going to run into all of the same problems you have under windows. Atleast under linux I'd hope the damage would be limited to the user's account but how many average joe's are not going to use the root account or give up their root password to a malware program promising free porn.
Now linux dose have a place on the desktop in big business, where you have someone to administer the systems. Diskless systems custom built with linux friendly hardware. All that is needed here is a polished up version of Open Office, firefox and thunderbird. I think we will see a web based solution the way things are going.
God, root, what is the difference?
"As I know that the GP post will be moded really down because of slashdot linux zealots I have to backup his statement..."
Dude, you have been trolled. And if that guy gets modded down it is because he is a troll, not because those evil Linux guys got him. Look at his post history and his home page -- gnaa.us? Dead giveaway.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
...depended on OS9? Lets be serious for a second. While I'm sure it's a painful process nonetheless, you can't really compare Apple forcing Adobe/Macromedia and a handful of other software makers to rewrite their packages to OSX' new API, to Microsoft forcing, say, the DOJ or Siebel to rewrite their software deployments. A Microsoft deprecated API could easily cost hundreds of billions of dollars. So for Vista MS is tasked with reviewing and security testing the heck out of whatever legacy components they cannot remove. And they do often take out legacy functionality that couldn't possibly fit our security model. But the major stuff, for the most part, has to stay in some form or another.
That said, I do wish more were done with virtualization to clean out the main OS.
What I've never understood is why a company as large as Microsoft never tried to create a second operating systems team with the goal of having it produce a new operating system from a clean slate? The original Windows team could still remain active for the short term and produce the types of updates that they have been in order to at least keep some reveneu from operating systems. This way the second team can work as long as they need until they have a good product. Even if the second operating system is a complete failure, which I don't see happening at a company with so many smart engineers, they would still be able to salvage at least some of the technology for use in the currect Windows code base. Microsoft spends a lot of money on R&D, so it doesn't seem completely far fetched that they would consider an approach like this. I know they have produced operating systems purely for research in the past (called Singularity, I think?), but why not create a second team to come up with something new, something that can avoid all the problems they've learned about developing Windows? The NT codebase won't last forever (at least I hope not), so I find it odd that Microsoft hasn't at least tried to start fresh again. I can't see NT lasting much beyond Vista and in a lot of ways I think it was a mistake to build Vista on top of NT. There has to be some point to break backward compatibilty and now is as good as a time as any. With ownership of VirtualPC, it wouldn't be hard for MS to run previous versions of Windows along side whatever new system they built, much like Apple did with OS X and OS 9.
SIGFAULT
I actually only read the article because the title is so misleading. I have a Mac G5 with OSX and a Pentium 4 with WinXP at work, and the Pentium 4 is easily faster than the G5 (though granted it is a year newer). The OSX GUI is smooth as silk, but Photoshop takes ages to resize things...
At any rate, would it be at all possible to get Zonk to change the title from "Why Windows is Slow" to "Why Windows Development is Slow?" It would cut down on stupid posts and system wars.
And on that note, I don't think MS has a problem with being overzealous in supporting legacy hardware... I think they support any and all hardware as best they can so that they don't get sued for antitrust again. Not supporting certain hardware could be seen as exerting undue influence on the industry. Apple, however, not only doesn't support legacy hardware, they also don't support a wide range of current hardware. I've always seen that as a problem, personally.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Working in publishing I know lots of Mac users, and I can assure you that there are proportionally just as many dumb Mac users as dumb Windows users. Back in the 80s there were quite a few Mac viruses going around (by floppy disk mainly). But now despite millions of clueless Mac users on shiny new iMacs with 24/7 broadband, it's still a newsflash if any are infected with a virus -- it does happen, but it's an oddity. Roll out the "too few to target" argument if you want, but they're just more secure out of the box.
I guess now we get to see what fraction of Slashdotters actually read the linked articles.
(Hint: the article makes no reference to the performance of Windows compared Mac OS X)
Also:
"Apple has a lean development group of roughly 350 programmers and fewer than 100 software testers,..."
Isn't it traditional to have a similar number of testers as developers? I know we mostly do, anyway.
The parent has got to be one of the most successful troll in the history of /. Just amazing how many took the bait. Not only that, he was off topic (TFA is about slow development of Vista) but avoided to pick the obvious "Dupe!" comment. I'm so impressed.
Well NY Times is looking to WRONG example IMHO. Windows client empire on enterprise is because of backward compatability.
Here is a random quote I saw on a $10 level (yes TEN) OS X shareware. Not naming it of course but developer is hopeless, he/she can't simply code for both 10.2.8 and 10.3.9+. No time and OS X is literally a moving target.
I "learned" this evil backward compatability as an end user flaming "developers" for a fault they didn't make.
"This is in response to some of the guff directed at me over the last several
weeks for having the audacity to complain that those of us still using OS 10.2.8
have been abandoned by the (removed) developers in their updates and to suggest
that a refund of our purchase price for the software would seem appropriate."
(addition)
"Not only do the updates not work on my OS 10.2.8 system, but the preferences on
the version (removed) does not work too".
This happens for a cheap software coded by independent developer. Now imagine company names like "Adobe", "Lotus" etc.
NY Times _must have_ a software, client coded in VB 6 somewhere. For example, they want it ceasing function so it will run on "new windows"? They may look for accountant department etc, VB 6 clients are common in such stuff. Oh BTW, it is common and it works, no "code elitism" please.
The NYT titled the article "Why Windows is Slow" - it should have been titled "Why Microsoft is Slow". The article talks about the slow delivery of new versions of Windows relative to Apple deliveries of Darwin. It's got nothing to do with the performance of Windows itself.
"but Windows has supported the same 16-bit API for over 20 years now without any shitty "Classic" layers. "
Ummm... that 16bit API is a "classic" layer. It is better integrated than Apples but that is because Windows hasn't changed as much as Apples OS. Windows is pretty much all nasty classic layers. Layer on layer on layer..... And yes I do actually code on Windows.
Here are some things that are VERY hard to do across multiple versions of Windows32.
1. Find where to add items to the sendto menu.
2. Find if a program is already running.
There are lots more but these where two that I had to deal with.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What's funny is, based on Microsoft and Apples experiences with virtual environments, you'd think Microsoft would take the whole backwards compatibility miasma and throw it into a Connectix/Virtual PC environment.
Build the whole OS as a tight, single codebase that supports VMs, then let the VMs handle backwards compatibility. I never understood why 100% of the population has to suffer for the 3% that wants that parallel port handheld scanner to work.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Look, ANYTHING Microsoft does, it is held under scrutiny and generally people will bitch and complaining about it.
Apple CAN exclude legacy support largely because they control every aspect of their products. Apple is their own monopoly.
If Microsoft deiced, hey, lets abandon serial ports you would have an uprising of epic proportions. First, slews of customers that rely on serial port items like data entry devices or signal sampling, or a slew of other legacy devices that only support serial ports will be up in arms over the loss of support.
Second, slews of companies will be up in arms over Microsoft deciding to drop legacy support of serial ports because they will be forced to have to redesign their products and possibly find solutions to send out to existing customers so they could continue to support that product.
Remember Microsoft is installed on over 90% of the world's PC's. If Microsoft makes a decision to drop Floppy support, or any other legacy technology, they have to answer to BILLIONS of customers. If someone doesn't like the fact that Apple dropped floppy support, then they just won't buy a Mac. If Windows drops support for floppies, then what will that customer buy?
It is so trite to say that Apple should be lauded for dropping legacy support while Microsoft should be reprimanded. Regardless of how people believe Microsoft owns a monopoly and controls every aspect of the PC, this couldn't be further from the truth. Microsoft has to cater to millions of consumers that can't drop their DOS games, or 10 year old devices, or legacy printers, even those applications and equipment belong in a museum (or landfill).
I am sure that Microsoft would love to end legacy support for a slew of devices. Do you actually think Microsoft WANTS their OS to be slow? Are some of you so delusional to think that Bill Gates sits there in his office wringing his hands and finding out ways to make his OS more insecure and slower????
If Microsoft made a grand decision to drop, say, analog CRT technology, or floppy drive support, or whatever, the uproar would be defining. Apple drops a legacy product, and largely the market say, so what, I still won't buy a Mac regardless.
Overall, this doesn't slow down Windows while running, only on installation of the OS and installation of device drivers. If you don't have certain legacy hardware, Windows isn't slow because it is trying to detect them, or running devices drivers for non-existent hardware. At least Microsoft has made their OS efficient enough to unload drivers for devices not found.
What truly slows down Windows is Microsoft's reliance on virtual memory, and even if you have 2 - 4 gigabytes of RAM, Microsoft still insists on a swap file. HARD DRIVES are the major bottleneck in performance on computers today, and when Microsoft forces gigabytes of data to be swapped to the hard drive, this reduces performance, PERIOD!
I can't stand the double standards imposed on Microsoft. Apple always gets a slap on the back anytime they do something, but if Microsoft does the same thing, they will be chastised. Microsoft gets brought to court for installing media players and browsers in their OS, but Apple is celebrated by including iTunes and Safari in theirs.
I am no big supporter of Microsoft by any means, I think they need to start getting some balls and telling their legacy clenching customers to drop DOS apps and old hardware and say enough is enough, but to laud Apple for doing that is just down right troll bait.
The problem is Microsoft is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Millions of people complain that Windows is slow because of legacy support and complain while millions more will be very vocal against Microsoft if they ever touch that floppy interface or serial port. Microsoft can't please anybody at anytime. Microsoft has had to support millions of devices and configurations, and guess what, they have done a good freakin job of it. Apple couldn't do it, Linux can't do it. The only reason why Windows has 90% of the market is because they have supported and will continue to support millions of devices.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
No. Windows NT sold far fewer copies than OS/2, and it was a marketing failure for most of its first three years.
It wasn't until Windows 95 was released that 32-bit applications started arriving, and that started to improve NT's popularity, but until then it was a fairly specialized OS used by relatively few hobbyists and forward-looking businesses.
The 32-bit Windows API is what eventually drove the dagger into OS/2's heart, but NT wasn't the driving force. The driving force was the ubiquity of Windows 95 installations and preloads.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
And that is the main problem with Microsoft as a company. It is neither providing for its customers (Why use Vista?), nor for their shareholders. Microsoft could have solved the legacy problem, the same way Apple and others have done it (even Microsoft did this!): Fork the damn thing. Create two OSes one with full backward compatibility one with limited backward compatibility. If you need to use a legacy app, you'll suffer the consequences (less feature, less stability), but those that can use only modern applications, get a modern, secure, stable OS. The fact that this option isn't even discussed at Microsoft, show how unoriginal their thinking has become...
Here are two points I'd like to make. First, this article is about the speed with which new version are released, not how fast they perform a given task. Second, anyone who complains about FAT binaries needs to have their head examined. The file size difference is so small in most cases that no one will ever notice and Windows programs in general tend to be monstrous in size compared to the same program for the Mac.
Microsoft have made a rod for their own back.
Despite the hype, by no means all establishments are using 100% Microsoft supplied software. There is a lot of dodgy legacy software out there, running on Windows, written using a variety of questionable techniques that most people don't get to know about, simply because the source code is kept hidden.
Every new version of Windows has to support all this old, broken software, because someone, somewhere is using it for a critical business application. Some of this old, broken software does things like control laboratory instruments. Engineers, technicians and scientists are often unable to use Windows-driven equipment to its full potential, simply because the software does not allow them to do some particular operation that was easy enough with its manual predecessor -- and they cannot modify the software, nor write their own. {We tried, at my former employer; we did successfully reverse-engineer one or two things; but on the whole I, and our development manager, found it simpler just to ditch the computer-controlled test equipment and build manual, analogue test sets.}
Yet more of this software is device drivers. Manufacturers in the Far East develop driver software on pirated Windows using pirated development tools. {They could easily develop Open Source drivers, but they don't need to: as far as the authors are concerned, Windows is available gratis anyway.} Windows needs a full complement of device drivers, otherwise existing hardware becomes obsolete and its owners become annoyed.
If Microsoft introduce a new version of Windows which breaks compatibility with old versions, then they will lose customers. It is as simple as that. If there is some important piece of software that cannot be used anymore, then alternatives will be evaluated; and questions will be asked. One of those questions might be "Why have we been paying money for this, when this does just as good a job for much less?" Another of those questions might be "Whose freaking saved documents are these anyway?"
So when it comes to backwards compatibility, Microsoft are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they keep backwards compatibility, it makes Windows slower, harder to test and more prone to errors. If they eschew backwards compatibility, it makes Windows a lot less attractive.
It's important to point out that these problems do not exist with Open Source software. Although binary compatibility will break from time to time, when it becomes necessary to add new features to a kernel or heavily-used library, source code can always be recompiled. Sometimes a patch may be necessary; but at least it's possible for someone to figure out how to patch a piece of software, even if the original author is no longer supporting it. And since file formats are open, migrating from one Open Source application to another is invariably less painful than migrating from Closed Source to Open Source. If the new application doesn't already have a suitable import filter, then one can be added; or a conversion tool can be written.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Its precisely Windows' legacy support that it holds the market share. Make a new binary format, take away all the previous apps ability to run, and suddenly Windows has lost the real edge, the real reason why everyone doesnt switch to another OS. Linux/BSD are awesome, except too many apps run only on Windows. Many apple and Linux fans are sitting on Win32 machines right now because theres that one app that has no equivalent in Linux/OSX. Games are a significant part of those apps.
Say Windows switches to a new binary format for a new processor and asks all other software and driver vendors to follow suit. Many of them wont rerelease their apps. Others will not care. Many driver makers will not bother to produce the new version (I've tried running the AMD64 Windows XP... so I know all this). The result is Linux has the edge suddenly. You dont need to have vendors rerelease drivers, except for the few proprietary drivers (like nvidia).
Microsoft will never do that. AMD64 is giving em enough headaches as it is... and AMD64 actually supports x86 32-bit in-hardware. Take away DOS support, and all the older API in Windows, and suddenly there are more apps available for Linux than for Windows. Suddenly, MSFT stock seems overvalued.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Compare that to the source code based architecture of UN*X systems. UN*X is fast and runs programs from before the first line of UN*X code was written.
The way to make no source architecture faster is to change to a new system. Right now Apple is the best known main stream no source architecture. But perhaps its time for basic architectural change.
Its portability on the source code level that allows UN*X to run on so many platforms.
Is it time for you to modernize?
The GP post, just like your post should be moded down to OFFTOPIC. The article is not talking about the speed of the Operating System, but about the speed of MS releasing the new OS into the world. So here you go, you did not read the article and if the GP gets moded down, you already assumed that you know the reasons behind it. What if a miracle happens, and a moderator reads the article and mods the GP down, should that mean that you are also flamebaiting?
You can't handle the truth.
Suposedly Windows is slow since it has to support legacy hardware. But Linux supports more legacy hardware than Windows. So, by that logic, Linux should be slower than Windows... Since that is not the case, I don't think support for legacy hardware is the reason Windows is slow...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Every new version of Windows has to support all this old, broken software, because someone, somewhere is using it for a critical business application.
I'm not sure I buy this... If this old, broken software is being used for a critical business application, who in their right mind is messing with it by upgrading the OS?
I have a feeling the backwards compatibility in Windows, in practice anyway, actually serves to benefit the average consumer more than it does the average business.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Don't buy consumer machines. Buy small business machines. Nice and clean.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
This is poor, even for the NYT - a shameless puff piece trotted out by someone presumably in Bill G's pocket. It helps to deflect attention hitherto focused on the Vista delay announcement. "Oh, poor Microsoft," we cry. "How they have suffered to make Windows so very backward compatible. This must be the reason for the delay." And so it continues ad nauseam.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. As numerous people have attested in this disucssion, it is often necessary to retain Windows 9x boxen in order to ensure compatibility with a particular piece of software on which one has to depend. And that ignores the innumerable hiccups encountered in the switch from DOS/Windows 3.x to Windows 95. It was ten years ago, now, so I will grant that some may have forgotten (or, at a guess, given the profusion of Myspace-era teens on Slashdot these days, they were not around to even remember), but a lot broke in that switch. At that age, my particular peeve was games, although the experienced - among which I like to include myself - were generally able to continue wrestling with fancy memory configurations in order to get such software to run. Still, it certainly wasn't easy, by any means.
The switch to the NT kernel has brought even more difficulties, many of them insurmountable. If you still have a piece of DOS software that NT won't run, there is no MS-DOS mode to restart in; the command prompt is sufficient for some but not all requirements. Certainly anyone who still wants to crack out an old DOS game under Windows XP is totally fucked, although one might like to remind them that it is time to move on...
Still, all of this would be as naught if it were not for the perpetual insistence on attributing the resplendent brilliance of Apple's Mac OS X to its willingness to shirk a supposed responsibility for backwards compatibility, the idea being that Windows sucks because it has excellent backwards compatibility. I have never understood this argument.
Probably because it is bunk. Among a diverse array of boxen at home - running, I might add, DOS, Linux, OpenBSD and Windows - I run Mac OS X 10.4 on a PowerBook G4. I am not about to indulge in a lengthy diatribe about the myriad ways in which Mac OS X is superior to Windows (or Linux, or...), because that has been ably done already, but I feel a short note on backwards compatibility is in order, seeing as it is that which is under attack.
Mac OS X has excellent backwards compatibility. I would argue in fact that from a user's perspective it is in some ways better than, say, that of Windows XP. It is beyond doubt that from a technical perspective, Mac OS X's backwards compatibility is superior to that of Windows XP. Consider why:
A quick perusal of various of the abandonware sites will render unto you a very plethora of old software for your DOS PC or Mac box. The difference is that you'll need an emulator to run the for-DOS stuff. Most of the time, anyway. On Mac OS X, assuming the Classic environment is installed (and I grant that it no longer is by default, but it is supplied on the Install DVD), you just double click the icon and within, say, a minute, you are playing a way on a classic version of Monkey Island from the early 90s. Maybe earlier. Oh, and with sound. Or perhaps the first version of Microsoft Word floats your boat. I have an old Japanese version of Microsoft Office on here which has proved indispensible on more than one occasion.
What is impressive is that some of this software is 20 years old and still works. Not only was it written for a totally different operating system, but it was written for a totally different chip architecture too. It integrates well too. An icon for a Mac OS 9 (or earlier) application can simply be placed in the Dock like any other application, and it runs - with menu bar and everything - just as it would in Mac OS 9. Whatever you may make of Windows or the Mac, that kind of compatibility is amazing
If you get to old enough stuff, you can run just about anything fine on a Mac or a PC, as long as there's an emulator, because as systems keep getting faster, even the emulation speed is faster than the old hardware ever was. What you need vendor software support for is relatively recent stuff. I'm just saying that I've come across more software that wouldn't run on different versions of Windows than I've ever come across that wouldn't run on different versions of Mac OS, yet I've used a lot more total Mac software. Given all the times I've heard someone complaining that they can't run such-and-such because it's for a different version of Windows than they have, I can't see why Microsoft wins the compatibility war.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Ummmm... never? .NET was designed to have different versions run side-by-side. Why, right this very moment I have .NET 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 installed on my machine and have various desktop-based programs using different versions.
Granted, I'm not in the .NET desktop app space (an ASP.NET developer, here), but I've never heard of anyone who's had installations cause one version of .NET to overwrite another.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.