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.'"
Windows isn't slow.
For doing every day tasks, such as reading email, surfing intarweb and writing documents, Windows, even on a crappy PC still beats the shit out of latest "desktop Linux" offerings.
Windows 2000 is usable on low-end p2/celeron systems with as little as 128megs of memory, and XP, properly installed, will function just fine with 256megs.
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, 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), still lacks kernel audio mixing, still lacks in PnP department (removing a "mounted" USB flash stick anyone?), 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.
What about hibernation? Part of what makes your PC seem "slow" is having to turn it on and off, and waiting for the OS to boot. How long does Windows 2000 or XP take to resume from hibernation? At most few seconds. I have a laptop with 1.5gb of memory with Windows XP Professional SP2 and it takes about 15 seconds to hibernate or resume. Last I checked, Ubuntu developers were worrying about reducing their several-minutes-long boot sequence. I'm not even going to mention hibernation because I know that doesn't work properly in Linux.
So here you have it. Is Windows REALLY slow? Nope. Considering the alternatives, it's a lot faster! And when Vista comes out this or next year (who cares when, it will be awesome anyway) - it will be even faster. With instant-on, even faster hibernation, and with new Intel CPUs/chipsets which support deeper sleep levels with more power savings, you'll never even notice your PC being slow. It will be always ready to use whenever you want.
+4 Obvious.
I am pro-lifechoice.
Being someone who has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours using both Windows and Macintosh systems, I find it funny that most of the die hard Mac users I know are some of the most computer illiterate people I have ever met... Which helps me understand why they need to buy a 3000 dollar lava lamp that locks them in to only use hardware and software that apple approves of. Some main things to keep in mind here would be...
A.) I can let a 6 year old install software on a Windows system... But I have to train someone who has 20 years of computer experience on how to find their files on a Mac.
B.) A Mac system that runs comparable to my desktop system (which is only a 2.2 AMD with 2 gigs of RAM) that I spent about 1100 dollars building would cost in the neighborhood of 3000 dollars.
C.) Asking a virus writer to take more time away from their freshman biology homework to code worms and viruses for a system only utilized by an estimated 16% of computer owners seems just silly. It seems there main intent is to affect users... They sure get a bunch more going the Windows route.
Not that Macs do not have their benefits... They sure are pretty! But hey, shame on a company like Microsoft for trying to make their OS support hardware and software people might want to use. I hope for a day when Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get to make all my software/hardware decisions for me! As long as my system boots quickly, I don't care what it does when it comes on... Brilliant!
Yay choice!
Let's just ignore the fact that there has been no new version of windows in over five years...
Unless Microsoft can pick up the pace, "consumers may simply end up with a more and more inferior operating system over time, which is sad," said Mr. Yoffie of the Harvard Business School.
Someone needs to send that man a copy of Mepis or Xandros right away. They should load it up with Cross Over Office and Parallels, so he can have all of his precious Windoze programs confined to a nice little X window where they can't rob his system of too much performance. With a few moments reflection, he will realize that free software is not hard to use, that legacy support of hardware and software is possible and that something radical has happened to the world of software development. In a month or two, he may realize that "consumer" is an insulting term.
Windows is no longer second rate, it's third rate and that's death for Microsoft. "Good enough" is not good enough when superior free alternatives are more than good enough.
Vista won't change anything. It's going to be XP times ten in terms of underwhelming customers.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Windows Is So Slow, but Why?"
So we assume it's slow and build an entire article upon it.. What if.. it's not "so slow" though? In my experience OSX and XP have comparable performance and there's definitely not something in XP that makes me say that is is "so slow".
What may make it slow is tons of startup programs, bulky drivers and software, licensing services and so on and so on, all 3rd party stuff.
What makes Windows so slow in the end though? Third party software does. I suppose OSX is really a lot better in that department, having a lot less software to cram on it, unfortunately.