Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy examines Windows 7 from the kernel up, subjecting the 'pre-beta' to a battery of benchmarks to find any signs that the OS will be faster, more responsive, and less resource-intensive than the bloated Vista, as Microsoft suggests. Identical thread counts at the kernel level suggest to Kennedy that Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite.' Memory footprint for the kernel proved eerily similar to that of Vista as well. 'In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities,' Kennedy writes, before discussing the results of a nine-way workload test scenario he performed on Windows 7 — the same scenario that showed Vista was 40 percent slower than Windows XP. 'In a nutshell, Windows 7 M3 is a virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance,' Kennedy concludes. 'In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues.'"

369 comments

  1. Re:so? by Xaemyl · · Score: 0

    In what ways? Elucidate!

  2. Sheer genius by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Funny

    not only is it a dupe, but the original article is still on the front page. Way to go.

    1. Re:Sheer genius by retech · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It was done in an effort to illustrate the issue.

      -Approved by the Office of Redundancy Redundant Department

    2. Re:Sheer genius by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, at first, I thought the "dupe" tag referred to Windows 7...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Sheer genius by Andr+T. · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that would be 'dope'

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    4. Re:Sheer genius by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but the other article was about how Windows performed the same computationally while having a faster interface. That failed to needlessly bash Microsoft by extrapolating miles from the evidence, and therefore was insufficient.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Sheer genius by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I was wondering if it was the same or not since the headline looked the same but I didn't read the other article either so I couldn't tell. The description of the article seems more evil in this one :D

      Tagging don't work in Safari so I can't tag the article accordingly :/
      (Without switching to a browser which doesn't suck that is ..)

    6. Re:Sheer genius by blowdart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes but we're ignoring the fact that the slashdot released currently running is a debug, limited release, unfinished product. Maybe when it's done the results will be different, just like the Windows 7, not even beta, version the lazy journalists tested.

    7. Re:Sheer genius by Loibisch · · Score: 0, Redundant

      -Approved by the Office of Redundancy Redundant Department

      That one usually goes "...the department of redundancy department."

    8. Re:Sheer genius by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Proof yet again that in addition to kdawson not "editing" Slashdot, he/she/it doesn't even read it.

      Honestly, how would you replace him/her/it with a shell script that performed that badly? You'd have to write it in FORTRAN, blindfolded, while tripping on mescaline.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:Sheer genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's an intentional dupe. Look:

      from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.

    10. Re:Sheer genius by wisty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which will be released as "Windows Mojave"?

    11. Re:Sheer genius by Clairvoyant · · Score: 1

      Ah, you mean the article in which the idea of Windows 7 being less-worse than Vista was based on perceptions? The article where they HAVE measured that the actual performance of the applications was not quicker, but they knew that the interface was quicker. They did not measure the speed of the interface, but it was quicker... really.... trust us.....

    12. Re:Sheer genius by escherblacksmith · · Score: 1

      Sounds like college . . .

    13. Re:Sheer genius by boxxertrumps · · Score: 1

      I write all my best software on mescaline, you insensitive clod!

    14. Re:Sheer genius by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Honestly, how would you replace him/her/it with a shell script that performed that badly? You'd have to write it in FORTRAN, blindfolded, while tripping on mescaline.

      Finally SOMETHING that explains the original Windows XP color scheme.

    15. Re:Sheer genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I'm programming in FORTRAN blindfolded and tripping on mescaline right now, you insensitive clod!

    16. Re:Sheer genius by gsslay · · Score: 1

      It's a kdawson effort. The summary knocks Microsoft product in the most unfair and clueless way possible. (Bench testing a pre-beta against a released version?? Well, duh!).

      My guess is no brain cells were employed between editorial review and appearance on front page, in a reaction that would be flattery to call knee-jerk.

    17. Re:Sheer genius by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Honestly, how would you replace him/her/it with a shell script that performed that badly?


      cat firehose.fifo | while read article; do
            yes "$(cat "$article")" >> frontpage.fifo &
      done

    18. Re:Sheer genius by Airline_Sickness_Bag · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which will be released as "Windows Mojave"?

      Because people will desert it?

    19. Re:Sheer genius by Maavin · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is a very good way to maintain FORTRAN code...

      --


      Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
    20. Re:Sheer genius by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      This article, right here, states that the Windows 7 interface is quicker, while the actual computational performance of a machine running Windows 7 is not changed. That is what it says, and it's interesting. What it does not do is come up with some bunch of crap about crippling compatability issues which seem to be pure inventions of this summary's author.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  3. Dupe? already? by TheShadowHawk · · Score: 1, Informative
    --
    Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
  4. Typical FUD against Microsoft by Defcon79 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I guess it was only a matter of time before the press got tired of hyping up Windows 7 and had to report some negative news to keep getting the page views.

    "zero measurable performance benefits"

    Yes, because things like improved startup time, increased battery life etc are not measurable right?

    "Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite"

    And when did Microsoft claim otherwise? The whole point of Windows 7 has been that its built on the Vista SP1 (Server 2008) codebase and they are NOT trying to change too much. Which brings us neatly to...

    "introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues"

    Read above. They didn't change any of the basics so that there would be no incompatibilities (like those caused by a new driver model).

    Of course, these articles purposely ignore all the UI and usability improvements the very same mags covered earlier, which make a very visible difference in daily use.

    1. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      Another MSCP? A better(?) UI is not a good deal if you need the double of resources to do the same things. Simple that

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Check your math there, Einstein. 2x != x.

    3. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by machine321 · · Score: 1

      And when did Microsoft claim otherwise? The whole point of Windows 7 has been that its built on the Vista SP1 (Server 2008) codebase and they are NOT trying to change too much.

      Especially when you consider that the server product will be named "Server 2008 R2". Added features, few major changes.

    4. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by RCL · · Score: 1

      And why do those UI improvements should matter in benchmarks?

    5. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Friend of MSCP? As example, many games needs "x" for windows XP and 1,5x~2x for Windows Vista. I see you can't understood figurative language

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      oops!
      (2x == x) for x in (-inf, 0, inf)
      (x^2 == x) for x in (-inf, -1, 0, 1, inf)

    7. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by MountainMan101 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No. Try again. -1^2 != -1 (same for -inf).

      Did you go to school?

    8. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2x != x

      provided x != 0

    9. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, because things like improved startup time, increased battery life etc are not measurable right?

      Improved startup time only matters in an OS you have to reboot multiple times per day.

      Increased battery life can be obtained on Microsoft's previous product, Windows XP, by tweaking a few settings. Then again, from what I hear, Mac OS X pretty much kicks everyone else's ass on battery life. Recent Linux distros aren't half bad either.

      And when did Microsoft claim otherwise?

      Microsoft previously claimed that the Windows 7 kernel would be a major rewrite. Sorry, no more MSFT stock options this year for you.

      Of course, these articles purposely ignore all the UI and usability improvements the very same mags covered earlier, which make a very visible difference in daily use.

      Windows users don't like UI improvements. They use Windows because it came with the computer and that's what they know. That's why Vista isn't selling. That's why people are doing acrobatics to get XP onto new machines. Get it through your thick skull, softie. And by 'usability improvements' I assume you mean backing out of changes in Vista that people particularly hated.

    10. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by tbannist · · Score: 1

      ...

      So why would people want to buy Windows "Vista with a Different Name"?

      I think you missed the point that people hate Vista, they don't want a Vista clone that is exactly the same as it.

      Frankly, I don't care about "Improved Startup Time" and "Increased Battery Life" and if you're not using a laptop, you likely don't either. If the rest of the operating system is as sluggish and bloated as Vista, Microsoft is just going to shoot themselves in the other foot.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but then this is microsoft, and its "mojave" thing. looks like microsoft has lost its mojo to crank out an XP.

      much was expected from windows 7. what happened to their completely re-written file system ? what happened to all those advancements they promised eons ago after winXP ?

      microsoft makes a bucketload of money, and has an army of engineers who do very little to ease the agony of people, worse still, they managed to subvert organizations like ISO. they deserve more bad press.

    12. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Zironic · · Score: 2

      I love faster startup time, really hate when I boot my computer in the morning, go off to make breakfast and it still hasn't finished booting when I'm back .

    13. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by pdusen · · Score: 1

      point.

    14. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft previously claimed that the Windows 7 kernel would be a major rewrite. Sorry, no more MSFT stock options this year for you.

      Can you site a MS site that said that please?

    15. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      The whole point of Windows 7 has been that its built on the Vista SP1 (Server 2008) codebase and they are NOT trying to change too much.

      If there aren't many changes, why don't they call it Vista SP2?

      My guess at the answer: Vista is a toxic brand already, so Microsoft hopes to fool people into thinking that Windows 7 is substantially different.

    16. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I used to hate the long boot time every morning too. Then, I saw the light, abandoned The Dark Side and installed Linux. Now, I wake up, go over to my computer and it's ready for me with no delay because I don't have to reboot it every day. The only time I reboot is for a kernel update, or if the power drops.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      what happened to their completely re-written file system ?

      Back in the old days, when the motto was still "Embrace and Extend," instead of today's NIH and "We've always done it That Way," they wouldn't have had to re-write the file system. Instead, they would have "borrowed" ext3, or Reiserfs and given it a New! Shiny! Microsoft! name. And it would have been better than what they have now.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    18. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Zironic · · Score: 1

      Since the computer shares room with my bed I prefer it to be turned off when I'm sleeping. Whenever I'm upgrading my computer again I'll try to get it quieter.

    19. Re:Typical FUD against Microsoft by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I clearly see the mighty £inux Corporation behind all this FUD about Windows now.

  5. Perfect by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Windows 7 is just a rehash of a just released OS, and this article is a rehash of a just released article. There's so much synchronicity, Sting is singing in the background.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Perfect by savuporo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition" Still stands strong. Now with a 64-bit patch on top.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    2. Re:Perfect by pikine · · Score: 1
      You mean this?

      64-bit resource consumption built on top of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch...

      --
      I once had a signature.
    3. Re:Perfect by theaveng · · Score: 1

      That's funny, but you took it too far. The original MS-DOS was written for the 8086 which was a 16-bit processor. Revised:

      "32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit operating system written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition."

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:Perfect by BrentH · · Score: 1

      It's a meme... Memes can't be taken too far.

    5. Re:Perfect by maxume · · Score: 1

      Mostly as a result of them starting there.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Perfect by jamshid · · Score: 1

      The greatest trick Microsoft ever pulled is making people believe that Windows 7 actually exists.

      Like I commented on yesterday's article, they knew they had to get something, anything, out and into the press for damage control of the Vista debacle. They labelled a Vista code branch "Windows7", got it building, called it a beta.

    7. Re:Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That comment has been so overly used.

    8. Re:Perfect by bhpaddock · · Score: 1

      The topic here is Windows 7, not Mac OS X.

    9. Re:Perfect by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The 8088 was introduced on July 1, 1979, and was used in the original IBM PC."

      The 8088 was an 8-bit processor.

    10. Re:Perfect by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      My friends ax through to dx disagree with you!

      The 8088 was actually a 16bit processor with an 8bit external bus.

    11. Re:Perfect by shaitand · · Score: 1

      my friends al and ah are going to have to disagree with your friends. Coupling 8 bit registers to make them addressable with 16 bit asm does not a 16 bit chip make ;) If you can address 8 bits, its an 8 bit processor.

  6. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    games, device support, office software, general acceptance in the business world. do i need to continue?

  7. Windows is, well, Windows? by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What exactly is this article trying to prove?

    Microsoft themselves have said that Windows 7 will ship will the same underlying infrastructure as Windows Vista. They also said that Windows Vista was the biggest kernel rewrite since Windows 2000.

    The interesting thing about a lot of Vista's bloat is that it isn't kernel level. We know this since we can compare Windows 2003 and Vista. Windows 2003 has almost identical program startup times to Windows XP/2000.

    I do think that Windows 7 is going in a disappointing direction in general. They seem to be playing right into what I like to call the "Apple Trap." Instead of doing what Microsoft do best which is to produce a workhorse they instead try and play the designer, and want to make a work of art.
     

    1. Re:Windows is, well, Windows? by eniacfoa · · Score: 1

      yes but microsoft have also stated the goals and one of those goals is - "the same software should run faster under windows 7 than vista"

    2. Re:Windows is, well, Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to be playing right into what I like to call the "Apple Trap." Instead of doing what Microsoft do best which is to produce a workhorse they instead try and play the designer, and want to make a work of art.

      Yeah, because Microsoft has always made a good, stable, reliable OS, and OS X just keeps getting worse?

    3. Re:Windows is, well, Windows? by mFriedy · · Score: 1

      Why are we comparing Windows 2003 with Vista? If i recall correctly, it's Windows Server 2008 and Vista that share the same kernel. I'm also pretty sure that the 2003 kernel is quite close to the XP one, which would result in the similar startup times you've noticed

    4. Re:Windows is, well, Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure, but I think the OP either meant 2008, or he was referring to the fact that Vista's kernel was based off of Server 2003, not XP.

    5. Re:Windows is, well, Windows? by Slur · · Score: 1

      Instead of doing what Microsoft do best which is to produce a workhorse they instead try and play the designer, and want to make a work of art.

      I think using "art" as a pejorative here is misplaced.

      If Microsoft applied Apple's design standards at the level of their OS and not just the UI, it wouldn't be "art" in the pejorative sense you imply, but a truly artful kind of programming - and what's wrong with that? You seem to imply that Apple has bolted a pretty exterior onto something on par with Windows.

      I don't know if you've had a look at Apple's system architecture from the ground up - all the way to the high-level APIs - but it truly is a work of art, very well organized, and performs extremely well despite what some (Linux fans perhaps?) might call compromises at the kernel level.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
  8. Re:so? by PinkyDead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "general" - is that another word for zero? - because I have yet to see a business running Vista, and I certainly don't think they are running Windows 7 - or probably ever will be.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  9. What? by avxo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no problems with benchmarking the O/S and commenting on performance and the like, but when the person that analyzes and presents these results says: "the process lists are similar" I'm forced to wonder what the guy is smoking. OK, so you have have smss.exe, csrss.exe, winlogon.exe, a bunch of svchost.exe processes. That really says nothing about the underlying architecture of the operating system and the amount of differences that are there. This guy might as well have said "I looked at Word '97 and Word 2007 and they're both named 'winword.exe' and let you edit text. I'm struck by those similarities!" Anyone expecting Windows 7 to be a radical departure from Windows Vista is delusional, all the more so if that expectation involved vastly different process lists. Also, this guy compares the video encoding performance of Vista and Windows 7 and says there's no performance improvements... That has got to the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Seriously. It might very well be that Windows 7 is as slow as Vista. Maybe it's even slower. But you will never know that by comparing how long video encoding takes on each of them. Video encoding is a CPU-bound process, so nothing Windows 7 does can improve the video encoding performance of any machine because it cannot just magically improve your CPUs clock speed. All other things being equal, any gains from encoding german scheisse porn on Windows 7 over doing so on Windows Vista are going to be negligible at best.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...any gains from encoding german scheisse porn on Windows 7 over doing so on Windows Vista are going to be negligible at best.

      What about normal videos?

    2. Re:What? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have to agree with you here, mostly. Most of the tests make very little sense, and expecting W7 to be a rewrite is just stupid. Watching some of the W7-related PDC 2008 videos, I never got the impression that improving performance was their major priority, except perhaps for some tweaks for netbooks. Instead, most of the focus appears to be on other areas such as improved usability and power consumption. Not to mention that the M3 is a pre-beta build.

      However, the OS can certainly have a significant impact on something like video encoding: differences in the scheduler or system calls/APIs can do that. Here's a somewhat outdated Vista vs XP benchmark. The xvid and h.264 encoders are around 20% slower in Vista, and the impact is similar in some other cases, such as with WinRAR or UT2004. Differences of just a few percent can usually be ignored, but I find these significant. If somewhere between the release of Vista and W7 the maximum differences are lowered to around 5% compared to XP, whether with a service pack, new drivers or optimizations, I'd consider that good enough and possibly switch. After all, going from Win98 to XP also caused a drop in framerates, but was well worth it.

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You are correct that video encoding is a cpu-bound process.

      It would make absolute sense to have cpu-intensive, io-intensive and mixed-cycle processes used for benchmarks, not because the actual time it takes for the cpu to encode the video (or for the drive to read a sector) would be different, but the overhead imposed by the rest of the o/s and necessary processes.

      It's this overhead that makes an o/s fast or slow, so the easiest way to measure it in a way that makes sense to the end-user, is to measure total wall-clock time for a cpu-intensive, an io-intensive and a mixed task.

      Of course the cpu time required for the actual encoding will be the same (assuming the encoding libraries and the standard shared libraries e.g. msvc are the same, and assuming context switches have the same latency). But wall-clock time also includes the timeslices given to the o/s (kernel and processes) as well as the latency of the scheduler itself.

    4. Re:What? by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If MS did something like Apple adopting an open standard (OpenCL) and putting an ultra modern, accessible, documented multi core SDK like "Grand Central", there would be huge changes to CPU bound video encoding process.

      Of course, they will go with ultra-mega-patched archaic libraries without putting anything new and accessible and watch Quicktime X doing amazing things on h264 encoding process which may lead to amazing things (it is open to developers). I bet they are still wondering how come OS X makes top 10 Amazon list whenever a major update releases.

    5. Re:What? by Zephiris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why are there so many of these pseudo-science-voodoo style reviews/benchmarks floating around? They're not touching on any real or user-meaningful metrics for performance, usability, compatibility, or anything else.

      Getting near-identical performance on a pre-beta OS is damn near a miracle, as most people who've been this befeore can attest.

      SPTD refuses to run on anything that's a beta, it's well known, nothing new, and isn't a compatibility issue. Why is someone expecting a ring-0 SCSI emulation driver to work on Windows 7 as soon as any developer builds are out the door, anyway?

      Inherent multi-core scalability, DWM/Aero, WDDM, Resource Monitor, Explorer, and the kernel have all received pretty major upgrades.

      Does anyone remember NT4 to Win2K differences? XP to Vista was like that. Win2K to XP differences were fairly minor, but incremental, and very useful, and everyone loves them now...called WinXP 'the worst OS ever', and 'another WinME', on day one (and before), too. Windows 7 more represents Win2K to XP, but isn't shying away from meaningful changes.

      Let's take ReadyBoost, for instance. It was introduced in Vista with a great deal of hype...which was mostly disappointing for limitations. In this release, they've enhanced it, enabled dedicating a USB flash drive to ReadyBoost specifically, allowing the use of -multiple- USB drives, allowed the use of ExFAT, allowed the use of slower drives (particularly with FAT16/ExFAT). A lot of the claimed "Windows 7 boots faster"...can already be experienced with a pair of sludge-cheap $5 2GB usb keys used in tandem with ReadyBoost. Everything seriously launches oodles faster, but Windows 7 tends to launch and boot significantly faster than Vista with a single 2GB ReadyBoost key.

      Windows 7's kernel received a few meaningful enhancements, like some heap error correction. DWM takes advantage of DirectX 10.1 class hardware, has little overhead or compatibility issues now. Sound drivers have sampling rate enforced more sanely to prevent needless resampling issues. Filesystem operations tend to scale far better with more than one CPU (finally).

      Aside from the pre-beta "unfinished UI" issues, I'd be happy to use the PDC build every day to replace Vista completely in a heartbeat for full-time everyday use.

      I'm tired of the bloody nit-picking. We're at least 7 months away from Windows 7 RTM, can't the so-called bloggers find something more useful to do than claim imaginary faults with an OS not even close to being out yet and stir up yet more drama and controversy?

      I'm just as tired of people doing it with various aspects/versions of Linux/BSD/Solaris/wine.

      Slashdot, frankly, should know a bit better. A article like that isn't news, it's a troll.

      I think the bottom line is that the majority of the focus on Windows 7 has been usability, with a fair amount on performance/functionality, with a very small subset focusing on 'eye candy'.

      SuperBar isn't flashy. It focuses almost exclusively on UI functionality, doesn't look any different really than regular taskbar. There are a few new 'user visible' Aero features (like the 'Shake' thing?), but the real bulk of changes have been under the hood, with a surprising number of applications and utilities getting improved.

      The article's kind of fear mongering is simply assinine.

      --

      "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
    6. Re:What? by karstux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of the claimed "Windows 7 boots faster"...can already be experienced with a pair of sludge-cheap $5 2GB usb keys used in tandem with ReadyBoost. Everything seriously launches oodles faster, but Windows 7 tends to launch and boot significantly faster than Vista with a single 2GB ReadyBoost key.

      Seriously? Do you have any sources to back that up? A quick google came up with nothing. I'm genuinely interested, as I'd love faster boot-up times.

      I didn't follow the state of ReadyBoost after the initial disappointing benchmarks, but if it has indeed matured into a usable system with real benefits, I'm willing to try it out...

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    7. Re:What? by TrekkieTechie · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you higher than 5.

    8. Re:What? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      How is aero on w7? One problem I have with vista is the dark colors on low end laptops such as mine. I hate the dark colors when you maximize with vista.

      I am wondering if the gui is more configurable? I still use windows classic as a result of this

    9. Re:What? by Dude+McDude · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know about launching apps, but boot time is supposedly faster in 7: http://lifehacker.com/5082336/windows-7-vista-and-xp-bootup-benchmarks-updated

    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by adopting you mean making the standard and then sticking Open on the title, sure. Not that it's a bad thing, but say Apple adopted OpenCL is like saying Microsoft adopted DirectX.

    11. Re:What? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      The dark title bar for maximized windows is a feature which is supposed to make it clear that the window is maximized and thus can not be resized or moved. Apparently you're not the only one who has a problem with the feature, so they're addressing this issue for W7. Here's the relevant MS blog post

  10. At least it is not slower by itamihn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*

    1. Re:At least it is not slower by Computershack · · Score: 0, Troll

      *cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*

      Indeed. It's as bloated and slow as hell compared to 7.10. The analogy is quite good.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    2. Re:At least it is not slower by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      At least Ubuntu is but one of many GNU/Linux distros. There a lot of lightweight distros out there, and you can even lighten Ubuntu, to some extent, with the WMs like LXDE. Or start (Linux) from scratch.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    3. Re:At least it is not slower by nitio · · Score: 1

      That is, unfortunately, the common answer when someone mentions anything of distro bubbles: "There are alternatives!". You know, this has got to stop at some point. Noone asked if there's another distro, the OP only mentioned that Ubuntu 8.10 is slower than previous versions. And he's right to complain if he was used to have a good performance on it. Hell, even I had better experiences with Windows XP than Ubuntu 8.04 in apparent performance.

      Don't get me wrong though, I've used Linux from 1999 until July this year when I finally gave up and bought myself a Macbook after a simple udev security update fucked up my whole system. I still think it's a powerful platform but still has ways to go - both internally and the mentality of the users/admins/devs.

      --
      http://stoploudness.org/
    4. Re:At least it is not slower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cofff* cough *cofff*
      I have some flaming Moe's if you are interested.

    5. Re:At least it is not slower by corychristison · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: These statements are not directed to you. They are just general statements.)

      That is, unfortunately, the common answer when someone mentions anything of distro bubbles: "There are alternatives!". You know, this has got to stop at some point. Noone asked if there's another distro, the OP only mentioned that Ubuntu 8.10 is slower than previous versions. And he's right to complain if he was used to have a good performance on it. Hell, even I had better experiences with Windows XP than Ubuntu 8.04 in apparent performance.

      The reason people suggest alternatives is because there are so many Distros. If you use solely Ubuntu and then the next release is awful, you'll get a bad taste in your mouth with Linux in general. If you don't even entertain the idea of trying something else, that taste will stay forever and you may end up back with Windows (or whatever you previously used). What most people fail to mention, is that it's just as much work to restore your previous install as it is to switch back to Windows(/OSX/BSD or your previous choice of OS).

      Also, by switching to something else (anything else) you are sending a message back to the developers of Ubuntu to smarten up on their next release. You get what you give, really. (*begin the "but it's free!!!" crowd*)

    6. Re:At least it is not slower by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've used Linux from 1999 until July this year when I finally gave up and bought myself a Macbook

      No one asked if there's another operating system, the OP only mentioned that Ubuntu 8.10 is slower than previous versions.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re:At least it is not slower by nitio · · Score: 1

      If you read my whole comment and tried to understand you'd see why I mentioned that. I'll be a nice guy and explain for other intelligence-impaired people: I mentioned so that anyone would not get the idea that I was just bashing on Linux for being a OSX/Windows user.

      --
      http://stoploudness.org/
    8. Re:At least it is not slower by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Touché.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    9. Re:At least it is not slower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Leopard if your that way inclined.

    10. Re:At least it is not slower by j14madd · · Score: 1

      *cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*

      hehe, I'm glad someone said it, cause I was certainly thinking it.

  11. Re:so? by name*censored* · · Score: 3, Interesting

    games, device support, office software, general acceptance in the business world. do i need to continue?

    Better device support, you say? And given the other three are not an attribute of Windows' quality, but instead it's popularity (especially given that OpenOffice is at least as good as MS Word), I'd say you DO need to continue.

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  12. Skipping this as well? by RenHoek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we're skipping this one as well?

    1. Re:Skipping this as well? by stmok · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. This time, we're jumping ship.

    2. Re:Skipping this as well? by Jugalator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I already did, to the most pleasant *nix system I've used yet, long time "ready for the desktop". OS X. :) I'll be damned if I have never before used an distribution providing such a merge of geeky features and usability and in general lack of fuss.

      If I were 10 years younger now, I'd probably write annoyed posts on how Windows 7 is copying OS X features like the Dock, but nowadays I can't even be bothered.

      I left that mess that's called Windows as for my home computing needs to get my work done more efficiently, and that's that. I've used Windows since 3.1, but Vista, and the lack of vision MS is still showing after that OS, was enough. That Apple is focusing on speed and not features on Snow Leopard is speaking volumes about the difference in mentality compared to the offices in Redmond.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  13. Isn't this kind of the point? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the biggest PR failures of Vista was serious compatability issues with old software and hardware. (I'm going to blame the soft/hardware makers for this. Everyone had 5 years to collect an arsenal of XP gear so I don't think they cried themselves to sleep that we had to buy new Vista Compatible printers just because they couldn't be bothered fixing the drivers.) MS have decided to base Win7 almost entirely around the existing Vista kernel to avoid this, hence the identical performance. "[I]ntroducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues" would be more likely if MS had decided to chase performance improvements in Win7, unless they based Win7 around the old XP kernel (which ain't happening in their new one-kernel-to-rule-them-all approach).

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Isn't this kind of the point? by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trouble is, if you read TFA, there are still compatibility issues with drivers and software designed for Vista. They'll probably be fixed, but it isn't a good sign.

    2. Re:Isn't this kind of the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the biggest PR failures of Vista was serious compatability issues with old software and hardware.

      Truth.

      Some software is written well, and some isn't. I tend to find that it's the software that isn't written well is the software that won't run on Vista. I've spent way too much time in my life ensuring that Quickbooks will run properly on a managed computer to not want to choke the life out of everyone at Intuit that can't fathom the idea of a proper security model for ACCOUNTING software.

      Further, companies such as Intuit produced these softwares after the Vista security model was known and could be accounted for, but elected not to code with it in mind. That way, they can make money on "upgrades." Good idea right? Keep your customers' products incompatible with the new OS, that way, they make the responsible decision to not buy the new OS and you don't get any money from sales of your new product and... wait a minute, that business model doesn't work....

      /rant

  14. Not a major re-write? by bazorg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought that Vista was a major re-write because of the new secutiry model. If that is the case, would it be reasonable to do another "major re-write" just a couple of years later? People might want to look into TinyXP project to see how much improvement can be made to a standard installation before demanding major re-writes.

    1. Re:Not a major re-write? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the TinyVista project to see how little can be done with a standard installation.

  15. !News by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Nothing new. Damn, I expected a better performance on Windows 7, but I see i will need to change to Linux when XP support gone out.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:!News by arotenbe · · Score: 1

      I see i will need to change to Linux when XP support gone out.

      Why wait? Start dual-booting now. It'll probably save a lot of grief with hardware compatibility issues later.

      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    2. Re:!News by Computershack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because all your software and hardware will work just as well won't it? Oh wait, no it won't.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  16. Not windows 7 but.. by POTSandPANS · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they've decided to finally release that Windows Mojave I've heard so many good things about!

    1. Re:Not windows 7 but.. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      I was cleaning out a shelf over the weekend and came across the big ziplock bag of manuals/documentation that came with my HP desktop from several years ago (it came with XP MCE 2005). The sticker on the bag says "Mojave MCE". Still not quite sure what to make of that.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Not windows 7 but.. by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mojave? They have yet to release Cairo!

  17. blah by n3tcat · · Score: 1

    I don't even think the slashdot staff read the frontpage anymore. There's story dupes constantly now! I mean is it too much to ask that they take 10 minutes to skim the stories on the front two or three pages since they last posted a story?

    1. Re:blah by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      I don't even think the readers read the comments anymore. There's comment dupes constantly now! I mean is it too much to ask that they take 10 minutes to skim the comments on the front two or three stories before they post a comment?

  18. Goodness me, what FUD by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some facts:
    - Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.
    - Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase.
    - Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet while not fundamentally changing the architecture. If it works on Vista it'll work on W7. That's a stated design goal.

    Thus, for performance: Expect Windows 7 to be more responsive to user-input, work on lower-ended machines, start up quicker, etc. Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%; memory intensive apps to use any less memory. They won't - Windows 7 is an operating system, not an overclockers kit.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Mascot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.

      When did this event occur? Last I tested Vista performance on this machine was with Crysis. That would be close to a year after Vista release. I got half the FPS compared to in XP. Half.

      Apart from DX10 there is nothing in Vista that interests me that can't already be gotten for XP via third party applications. So far there aren't exactly a huge amount of DX10-only games, and unless the performance issue mentioned above has indeed been sorted it would be a moot point either way.

    2. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you comparing Vista to XP, DX9 to DX10, or your graphics card's Vista drivers to its XP drivers?

      (hint: it's a mix of all 3, but the last will make by far the most difference in a graphically-bound game)

    3. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    4. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by makomk · · Score: 1

      Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase.

      There are two issues with this. Firstly, it's far too aggressive, so people have had issues with it kicking data out of memory that is actually needed at the time. Secondly, it uses hard disk bandwidth and seeks that (unlike memory) aren't exactly cheap, and this doesn't help performance.

    5. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Troll

      Are you on drugs?

      "Some facts:
      - Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now."

      I reproduce this over and over and over with customers. They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER. Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years. In order to make vista as fast as XP you gotta have a good video card, a good fast dualcore processor and a hunk of ram (2GB) Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog. Every single Lattitude from 2006/2007 we did a vista reinstall to was in fact very slow compared to the XP install.

      I know you work for the microsoft get the facts campaign but get real. Anyone that has touched Vista knows it needs a lot behind it to make it feel responsive.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides, they're testing a version of Windows 7 that is not even a beta drop. As such, it has yet to get its full code optimization, and by the time Windows 7 finally ships at the retail level expect substantial performance increases.

    7. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by wild_quinine · · Score: 0, Redundant

      When did this event occur? Last I tested Vista performance on this machine was with Crysis. That would be close to a year after Vista release. I got half the FPS compared to in XP. Half. Apart from DX10 there is nothing in Vista that interests me that can't already be gotten for XP via third party applications.

      This is not a well informed viewpoint.

      1) DirectX 10 is not interesting, has not been used interestingly. Like many other ill informed PC gamers you are still sitting around waiting for improvements to come from that well, but trust me, that well is dry - partly technologically, and partly circumstantially, but DX10 is nobody's answer to anything.

      2) Vista performance HAS been significantly improved, and simply pretending it hasn't does not make Vista a worse operating system.

      I don't know what the constant need to hate Vista is, or where it comes from, but it is irrational. It was bad, it is now better, most people have little reason to move from XP. That's the entire situation in a sentence. A constant outpouring of hatred changes nothing.

    8. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The humor is that the only reason DX11 is coming is because wine is working on compatibility for DX10.

      Once wine starts working on DX11, MS is going to shove out DX12....and so forth and so forth. Very soon, developers are going to be pissed with the changes, which as I hear in DX11 are about as big as from DX9 to DX10 (aka almost nothing).

    9. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by mdhoover · · Score: 1

      Some facts: - Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet while not fundamentally changing the architecture.

      So Windows 7 is basically Windows server 2008 with some more shiny shiny?

    10. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by ethicalBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow... Mr. Gates will put your $5 check in the mail right away...

      I just recently bought a new quad-core box w/ 4GB of RAM, high end video, the works, pre-installed with Vista.

      I'm a photographer and work in photoshop with large images on a daily basis. I was noticing very little speed difference in my 4yr old machine with lesser specs running XP and the brand new, more powerful machine running Vista.

      At first I thought it was Photoshop, so I completely uninstalled, and reinstalled. No change. A lot of things in Vista ran NO faster (or slower) than it did on my 4 yr old XP machine.

      I uninstalled Vista, installed XP, and that same new machine is now BLAZINGLY fast.

      My Vista experience was HORRIBLE.

      I was hoping that W7 would be an improvement; but it's not sounding hopeful.

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    11. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should've used DX9 mode. DX10 mode offers this and this alone: a 25% drop in framerate. Instead, just have a look on Google for how to change Crysis' graphical configuration files (they're just plaintext).
       
      The 'DX10' effects are also available in DX9, but are locked out in the game options arbitrarily. They work perfectly well in DX9 mode, without the performance drop of DX10. Frankly, the devs were incredibly stupid for using DX10 in the game at all. They must've been paid to do it that way, because the drops in performance are plainly obvious and they coded the game, so they know there was no benefit for the user.

    12. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      i played stalker: clear sky on xp and then on vista on the same machine. there was a 20% framerate drop, but the graphics were so much more beautiful that i decided i could live with that.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      These kinds of comments are quite interesting as there are a lot of them. On the one hand they say that Vista IS slower. But subjectively they then say is not so bad and there are all these great features that make up for it. Well, I have used Vista and there were no great features that made up for it being bloated and slow for me. It is a bit hard to believe people would accept some window dressing of a fundamentally flawed OS is going to actually make better. It makes sense that Microsoft is trying to stop the hemorrhaging with this PR move, but really they should address the root problems.

    14. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by scruffy · · Score: 1

      Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years.

      Here is one benchmark where XP is nearly twice as fast as Vista.

      http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp3-yields-performance-gains.htm

    15. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I installed Vista about 8 months ago and hated it - I went back to XP. I ended up reinstalling Vista this week and it feels a 100 times faster than it used to. I have no issues with it and everything is a bit more cleaner and dare I say even a little more secure than XP. It took a bit to get there but I'd recommend Vista now.

      Too bad their PR and consumer's preconceived notions can't overcome the hurdle - I would guess Windows 7 will be their attempt to right the wrongs as Vista falls by the way side. I won't be surprised in 5 years we'll all be saying "Vista wasn't that bad after all" Just like we all did with XP...

    16. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase."

      Yeah, I just love it... how Vista tries to "think" it knows everything about me, what I'll run, how I'll run it, when I'll run it, what phase Jupiter is from the Earth at any given point in time, and all that crap... and just loads crap I have no intention of running. Oh! And can't forget the constant grinding of the hard drive as it loads this crap to RAM, minutes after it's been logged in.

      Why does Vista not seem to know that I want it to just leave my fucking memory alone, load the bare essentials, because I'll be filling it up ON MY OWN in just two minutes with extremely high-res astronomical TIFF images? Instead it starts filling the memory with shit I have no intention of doing anything with for the time being, only to be overwritten almost immediately. Extra hard drive grinding for NOTHING. And that's just one example.

      Okay, Windows (under the right cercumstances--ie, a dirty, bloated, malware- and shovelware-infested install) has had that problem for an eternity now, but this is a relatively clean install I'm talking about. Plus, any time you mention Vista's grinding hard drive these days, the reply is always "SuperFetch" or whatever the fuck it is. Kind of like any time you mention memory leaks or bloat to Mozilla, their response is usually "It's the extensions!"

    17. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now."

      Sorry, but that is NOT a fact. Vista has been slow as heck on my new laptop. A 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4 MB L2 cache, with 4 GB of ram. And yes, I cleaned off all of the "extra" software it came with. It's still slow. I turn off Aero, and it's still slow.

      After giving Vista a chance for over a month, I ended up switching to XP, and it's like night and day difference.

      Vista basically sucks, and the only people who don't see that are M$ fan boys. Your "facts" are about as good as Bush's Iraq intelligence was in 2003. ;)

    18. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you on drugs?

      They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER. Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years. In order to make vista as fast as XP you gotta have a good video card, a good fast dualcore processor and a hunk of ram (2GB) Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog.

      I didn't see that. I only use Windows because I need a TabletPC for handwriting. I upgraded to Vista from XP TabletPC because it offered better support for handwriting recognition and GUI integration of the stylus. My TabletPC is an aging Thinkpad X41 with !.5M RAM, 1.5GHz Pentium M, Crappy Video, and a resolutely slow 4200 RPM 1.8" ipod disc drive.

      I actually saw improved performance when moving to Vista. I do use the ReadyBoost feature but I noticed little improvements after setting this up.
      The only problem is that after booting or coming back from hibernation I see a lot of disc activity that I often have to stop and wait a minute or two for it to die down before I can use a timing-critical app, like Skype or streaming. I give it it's minute or two and its just fine.

    19. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle 'black' ... lol ... look dude, just because you say 'Vista is barely slower than XP on ...' blah blah blah .. doesn't make it true. Do you think you're going to win over converts simply by blathering on /.? All anyone has to do is try to use Vista to realize that what you're saying is complete horseshi*t. Some 'facts' for you. My job requires that I use both XP and Vista on a semi regular basis. Vista is unusable. I can still get work done on XP SP3 (although its pretty bloated) without wanting to shoot myself

    20. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by pdusen · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. I'd call you out on it if you weren't an anonymous coward.

    21. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Firefox team have done a good job of finding and closing a lot of the memory leaks that didn't used to exist, so memory problems really are increasing a result of extensions (that is, 'there aren't leaks' stopped being the party line many moons ago).

      For people that use a lot of tabs, setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to something lower than the default (determined from the amount of RAM present, 3 is a sane value to change to, 5 for people who use back and forward a great deal) will also decrease memory consumption.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUD! Yaaaaawn!

    23. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years.

      I have Vista on last year's Presario with 2GB of RAM and a Turion 64 X2 CPU, and it runs like crap. I'd upgrade it to XP in a heartbeat if Nvidia made XP drivers for its graphics card.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    24. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Wow... Mr. Gates will put your $5 check in the mail right away...

      I thought he sent out $6.40 checks - after all, that ought to be enough for anybody

      --
      What?
    25. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I turn off Aero, and it's still slow.

      Turning off Aero will probably make it slower. If you leave Aero on, it offloads a lot of the graphical work onto the video card.

      Vista basically sucks, and the only people who don't see that are M$ fan boys.

      Look at how wrong you are. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy. I held onto Windows 98SE for years after XP came out because I fear MS operating system changes. A few months ago I bought a new Core 2 duo system and took the plunge with Vista Ultimate SP1, and I think it's fine. The machine I'm using to post this is an XP machine and using it is like going back to the bronze age compared to Vista at home.

      I don't really care if I get 83 vs 87 fps in Fallout or whatever. It works great, and it looks nice. Sorry.

    26. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      As with our Vista SP1 testing, we used the identical Dell XPS M1710 test bed with 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1GB of RAM and discrete nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video. Think the 1GB might have something to do with that result?

    27. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by symbolset · · Score: 1

      What amazingly detailed analysis. Remarkable reportage there. I like how they cite hard numbers, and how their methodology is laid out.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    28. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why don't you simply turn SuperFetch off?

    29. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by symbolset · · Score: 1

      He can't hear you. He lives in the Vista Compatible Isolation ward in Redmond. They only let those folks see the quirky gear that works well. Stuff that doesn't work well, or at all, isn't allowed within ten miles. That way they can be forthright about how great this thing works and how happy you should be when really what you want to do is install Vista on a different type of machine. The concept of "representative sample" has escaped them, and that's why W7 isn't going to be any better than Vista. Nor W8 either. With luck though, there won't be a W9.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    30. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Mascot · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see how you contradict anything I said, yet the way you respond seems to indicate you disagree with me.

      1) I did not say DX10 was of general interest. I said it was of interest to me (only reason for that is the possibility of games at some point requiring it). Are you saying I don't know what I'm interested in?

      2) I didn't say it hadn't been improved. I said *the last time I tested* it was complete crap compared to XP in the *one* game I tested it with.

      I did not say anything about hating Vista.

    31. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. i did a comparison between my xp and vista installs and everything on vista is just slower. i do a lot of video encoding and vista can be anywhere from 10-30% slower with the same projects than xp. forget about games vista produces a slideshow out of games that run ok under xp.

    32. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      Are you mentally impaired, blind, or can't be bothered to click links? In any case, here's the link to the actual article, even though you don't deserve it. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.asp

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    33. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet.." RTFA 7 is just as bloated as Vista. There is no diet. Yeah I always wanted to have 4 GB of RAM just so I can run the OS! Dumb ass.

    34. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by pdusen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I just recently bought a new quad-core box w/ 4GB of RAM, high end video, the works, pre-installed with Vista.

      So you bought a Vendor PC. With all of the assorted pre-installed performance-hampering junk that always comes with that.

      Right. You can totally be taken seriously.

    35. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by pdusen · · Score: 1

      If I look hard enough, I can find a blog that says the moon is made of green cheese. Give me something useful.

    36. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Despite my real-world experience saying the exact opposite of what you said, I would have believed your entire post about your experience, had you not managed to throw in both 'M$' and some Bush-bashing in at the end (along with a nice little emoticon, in case nobody caught how clever you were to put those in!).

      Newsflash: Hating Microsoft and Bush doesn't make you cool.

    37. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista got a bad reputation because of the minimum system requirements. People running systems with hardware more then 2 years old should just stay with XP or go to Linux. People with modern hardware ( I build my own) Vista is a much better experience and with the 64 bit version is huge. 4 gigs of ram makes it run faster then xp on the same hardware. I did the tests myself with the same programs loaded on both OS. Now I am not a M$ fanboy as they need to start reducing the cost of windows IMHO. Linux has it's place and I run Ubuntu and love it. For gaming I use my Vista machine. Windows 7 is still beta and give it some time. M$ hopefully will not make the same mistakes they did with Vista and more people will stop slamming it because they caved in to the hardware makers on the specs.

    38. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I reproduce this over and over and over with customers. They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER.

      Oh, well, if you type it in all-caps, it must be the case!

      Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years.

      Because Slashdotters, most of whom haven't used any version of Windows since '98, continually post "Vista is so godawful!" without mentioning that they've never actually tried Vista.

      I'm not saying that's the case for you, I'm just saying that there's so much noise from anti-Microsoft wags that it's really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog.

      What about when you turn off Aero? You did try that, right?

      Every single Lattitude from 2006/2007 we did a vista reinstall to was in fact very slow compared to the XP install.

      And they were all similar models from the same vendor... how do you know it wasn't just a single bad driver causing all your problems? Hardware makers have been complete and utter shit adapting for Vista, I'd be a lot more likely to blame that than anything Microsoft did.

    39. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Mascot · · Score: 1

      The performance drop I experienced was on High. That made Vhigh rather irrelevant since I had to drop to Medium in Vista to get it playable at all.

      I read about the tweaks to get the DX10 effects in DX9 but never bothered with them myself. As long as the graphics aren't distractingly bad, it doesn't make much difference to my enjoyment of good game mechanics. Not that Crysis had much of that, but that's another discussion.

    40. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      No, Actually I had a system built to my specs. - I had it built to accommodate my specific uses (heavy photoshop and video editing) by a custom vendor instead of building it myself - I've assembled my own boxes in the past, but I can also afford to pay someone else to do it - so I'd rather tell them what I want, and let them assemble it.

      I just didn't feel the need to unzip my pants and list all the components...Nor do I feel the need to prove my geek cred anymore - I'd rather let someone else to the assembly, testing and install for me.

      The vendor who built it just put a stock copy of Vista Business on it for the OS.

      It's the same as if i had built it myself, and installed vista. I didn't object to Vista, because it was a new, pretty hot box and i wanted to "kick the tires" of the new OS - and it failed.

      I know I'm just feeding the troll; but pdusen, you really need to move out of mom's basement...

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    41. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It occurred in SP1. If Crysis was the only game you tested then you fail. Last I checked, Crysis itself had problems with Vista. Which would be Crytek's problem, not Microsoft's. Most games that don't use OpenGL show 5% decrease in performance or identical performance when compared to XP.

    42. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by pdusen · · Score: 1

      LMAO! Hey, I can play this game too...

      I know I'm just feeding the troll; but ethicalBob, do you know what a woman is?

      See? It sounds just as stupid when you say it.

    43. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      See, i love this game too,

      and I do know what a woman is - it's the person making my lunch right now, and also something that you've never had because live in your mom's basement :-)

      as the brits say... 'bob's your uncle...'

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
  19. same shit, different paint? by Tom · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So, they are essentially releasing Vista SP1 as "windos 7", right?

    Given the development time, that shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. What did you expect? A total rewrite-from-scratch?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:same shit, different paint? by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      Which might be true if Vista wasn't already at SP1.

    2. Re:same shit, different paint? by stmok · · Score: 1

      Its more like: Windows 7 => Windows Vista Second Edition.

    3. Re:same shit, different paint? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Vista ME

    4. Re:same shit, different paint? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Huh? No, Vista SE. ME was a failure, in this case, Vista seems to be the failure, and W7 bringing the stuff in that should have been there from the start, like a more intelligent UAC feature. But MS would never call it Vista SE as the brand name is too tainted now. See also the Mojave Experiment.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  20. Why would it be faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Performance is mostly determined by the program code and hardware latencies. The few things that the OS does have been tweaked and optimized for so long that any noticeable throughput increase would be a miracle. The aspect which can still see some improvement, latency, is not tested by the typical benchmarks. Another kind of improvement is to make the system just as fast but less "optimized", in other words, achieve the same performance with a clearer, more maintainable architecture. If Microsoft can deliver on these aspects, then Windows 7 does not need to be faster to be better. If.

  21. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He said "better" not "more".
    Quality not quantity, sadly.

    I love Linux, it's good for work, good for application and data servers, but for me, there is a problem.

    I am a gamer and I like trying out new hardware. Both of these always pose problems under Linux.

    Good stable drivers take time, and require the support of hardware vendors.

    Sadly, this means I still have to own and use a copy of Windows XP or give up on games and toys. Ain't gonna happen!

  22. MinKern anyone? by Amiralul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read rumors about a minimal kernel to be used in the next Windows version. Will 7 skip it?

    1. Re:MinKern anyone? by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Informative

      This explains nicely - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1707

      Short answer: mostly.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
  23. article = fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this article is full of shit. how did it make it to slashdot? oh wait..^^

    1. Re:article = fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my FP was removed as well. fucking /. cockheads, can't handle anything that doesn't suck up linux fanboys assholes.

  24. An easy improvement with respect to Vista by syngularyx · · Score: 1

    An improvement could be a reduced number of versions in which it will come. How many versions MS will try to sell this time?

    1. Re:An easy improvement with respect to Vista by stmok · · Score: 1

      I suspect it will be the same number as last time.

  25. No Surprises Here by rdnetto · · Score: 1

    Come on guys, its a pre-beta! We all know that Windows 7 is going to be a refined version of Vista, did you really expect them to actually do any thing significant so far? I'm guessing that the performance will only start to improve by the 2nd beta, when all the new features are implemented and they have fixed all the major bugs. Right now, it's little more than Vista with minor tweaks to the UI.

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    1. Re:No Surprises Here by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Come on guys, its a pre-beta! ... did you really expect them to actually do any thing significant so far?"

      Yes. I pulled some facts off the Wiki but I think they are pretty accurate.

      Windows Vista RTM: November 8, 2006.
      Microsoft stated in 2007 that it is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe"
      Release dates are supposed to be in the region of 2009 or 2010.

      So, to me, that says that it's *at least* eighteen-months, two-years into development (or thereabouts). It's got another year to eighteen months to go. So, halfway through it's development process, we have *zip* that is actually useful to the average user (which is who it is supposedly aimed at) and nothing to entice business users. There are *no* performance improvements. None. Programmers don't magically add 50% performance after-the-fact, it's *design* that gives you performance.

      Halfway through and we don't have a single groundbreaking feature. Nothing. Not even something to show off temporarily. Seriously, read through the Wiki page on "new features in Windows 7" and have a look at the features that are actually *HERE*, not the ones "promised"... remember, Windows Vista was going to have WinFS etc. It's completely embarassing. Instead of a "new operating system", we just have:

      Vista, with no better performance, some unnecessary UI changes (purely to make gullible people pay to "retrain" on the new OS in my opinion), removal of lots of built-in applications, a "Health Centre", some claims about fantastic new features that this article proves aren't even in there yet (better performance, threading, etc.) or that only a handful of people in the world could get excited about.

      What that tells me is that all these marvellous new features DO NOT EXIST in a reliable form. But I'd be showing them everywhere if they did just work, even only on one machine - I'd be booting it up in conferences, showing it in trade shows, making people WANT that feature that I haven't finished yet and which only works on 25% of machines while the programmers hack on it. But there's *nothing*.

      Fortunately, I saw the Vista thing coming.

      I had a job interview the other day where the main technically-literate person on the panel asked my opinion on Vista. Needless to say, I was wary of giving my reply in case it was interpreted as belligerent or dismissive, but the interviewer and I laughed and joked and told Vista anecdotes for about ten minutes *in the interview* once he realised that I shared his very-low opinion of the OS. (I got the job, by the way.) I'm pretty sure, at this point, that Windows 7 will be more of the same or worse. Promises, promises, promises and then sting the customer before they realise that they've bought a turkey and that actually it was only useful for the little sticker with the Product Key on it that lets you use its predecessor instead.

    2. Re:No Surprises Here by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry, you're talking rubbish.

      Yes good, efficient design is from the ground up but once you've got the underlying structure sorted, you then move onto features. Once all the features are in place, then you move onto optimisation. Optimisation and bug fixing are the final stages of development, after all, you can't optimise things which haven't been implemented yet can you? Often, yes, you do get magical performance boosts late into development (have a look at videogame development for the clearest examples of this). However Microsoft have never promised magical performance boosts. They've just said less bloat, more streamlining.

      No new features? There's the improved wireless, the GUI which will now load and be smooth BEFORE graphics drivers are installed (I don't believe any desktop versions of windows have done that since before win95), the interface is hugely optimised, resulting in a much smoother experience from practically everyone who has done the beta. They've shown a version that will run comfortably on netbooks whilst still looking and feeling great (and the OS is SSD optimised). They improved the UAC so you can make it as invasive or as invisible as you wish. They've implemented Libraries, Homegroups, a 'Play To' feature that will let you play media on any connected PCs. They've updated all the basic applications (notepad etc.).

    3. Re:No Surprises Here by ledow · · Score: 1

      "Yes good, efficient design is from the ground up but once you've got the underlying structure sorted, you then move onto features."

      Except, little to no "underlying structure" has changed. If it did, we'd need new driver models (like Vista, which claimed the same thing but actually followed through with it and didn't actually show that much improvement at all), new API's, new ways of doing things entirely. The *design* of Vista/Windows 7 and even the server OS's is now virtually identical. The only difference is in the eye candy that sits above it. And you don't "move on" to features - the features *define* the changes that you need to make. But, and I repeat this with your items below, there are no *significant* *new* features in Windows 7 yet. They may appear, they may not. I very much doubt anything more than eye candy will surface now because there is not even a hint that anything is actually in progress... 50% of your development time is not spent "gettings things ready" for a new feature without making *substantial* changes to the underlying OS or at least providing some hint that that feature is requiring changes to be made. There's *no* sign of that.

      "Once all the features are in place, then you move onto optimisation. Optimisation and bug fixing are the final stages of development, after all, you can't optimise things which haven't been implemented yet can you?"

      How true that is. You can't optimise thing that don't exist. However, nothing "new" exists. So there's nothing to optimise, which is why this pre-beta OS behaves in the exact same manner as the post-SP1 Vista. Because it's the same bloody code. I would *expect* a dramatic performance hit in a pre-beta OS. Nothing less. There should be debug info, assertions, all sorts of tests and edge cases being caught that make it slow to a crawl. But somehow it performs *identically* to it's predecessor. That tells me that there's been no changes *to* optimise or debug.

      "However Microsoft have never promised magical performance boosts. They've just said less bloat, more streamlining."

      Neither of which is evident.

      "No new features? There's the **improved** wireless, the GUI which will **now** load and be smooth BEFORE graphics drivers are installed (I don't believe any desktop versions of windows have done that since **before win95**), ..., They **improved** the UAC so you can make it as invasive or as invisible as you wish... They've **updated** all the **basic** applications (notepad etc.)."

      My highlighting speaks for itself. Additionally, the last point is heavily cancelled out by removal of quite a few of those applications *entirely*.

      Now, I've stripped some of your suggestions out to talk about them one by one.

      "The interface is hugely optimised, resulting in a much smoother experience from practically everyone who has done the beta."

      Apart from the guy who did the benchmarks. "Hugely optimised" is an enormous statement to back up. I doubt you can prove it with numbers but as this very article shows, looks don't always mean that it *is* working faster. It may "feel" faster. Even then, we're talking about "optimisation" again, which doesn't seem to have any effect on the actual measurable numbers, so I claim that it's not optimised AT ALL. Also, it's not "new". Every OS since Windows 2.0 has claimed to have a "improved" interface with "optimised" code. Rarely has it ever materialised.

      "They've shown a version that will run comfortably on netbooks whilst still looking and feeling great (and the OS is SSD optimised)."

      SSD optimisation is *new*. I'll grant you that one. It's a not-easy task, too, because it's not as simple as just assuming that every seek is latency-free - that's deep-level, hard kernel work. However, most SSD's actually pretend to be IDE, SATA, etc. interfaces and so all that work will result in minimal optimisation because of the sheer layers between the two, along with the fact that most SSD's aren't optimal or fit to their cl

  26. Please just stop... by Loibisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please just stop following every step of "Windows 7" which will probably not be out for years, despite anything Microsoft says.

    The only thing those reports generate is the hype Microsofts wants around their unreleased OS to keep up hope in people dissatisfied by Vista. Yeah, this time it's all going to be better...sure.

    Windows 7 is not special and it's not worth reporting every tidbit unless there's actually a product or a set-in-stone feature list.

    1. Re:Please just stop... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If I trusted MS not to be opportunistic and actually do deep level changes which will make those archaic SDK using idiots mad, I would seriously watch MS Windows 7 development.

      Even today, they started to make changes which will be in favour of their big software friends on unreleased OS. The "It will run whatever Vista can run" gives a big clue.

      In Apple terms, they don't say to developers "Switch from Carbon to Cocoa or your app won't run and there is nothing you can do to change it." That is what Apple says to Microsoft itself and Adobe, imagine that. MS Office had to deal with very strict gcc coming with XCode 3. Now they say it is one of the best MS Office done on OS X. Guess why? :)

    2. Re:Please just stop... by olman · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 is not special and it's not worth reporting every tidbit unless there's actually a product or a set-in-stone feature list.

      It will most likely end up on 97% of new home computers bought 2010 and later. I'd call that sort of "special". Given what a big hit vista has been on business desktop I'd give it a fair shake that we won't see any major rollout of W7 in offices either. Just why bother? W2k would work fine except quite a few new apps are not tested against it => fail on wrong wrongness in some DLL.

      If NT4 had USB support (ever wonder how that was not added in an SP, hmm..) it'd work just fine for getting work done if you can put up with the ugly UI.

    3. Re:Please just stop... by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Like I said, wake me when there's a product or a complete and final feature list.

      Vista was reported on for years, and in the end most of the brand new spectacular features were missing from the release. So please, please just stop unless there actually is a product worth reporting on.

    4. Re:Please just stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why?

    5. Re:Please just stop... by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because gcc coming with XCode is so strict that it will not allow stuff which previous (Tiger) gcc allows. It even says things like "warnings are treated as errors". So, they were forced to code it very cleanly compared to previous Office which is in fact a gigantic Carbon monster.

      Of course, as it is MS we talk about, they managed to install that clean code under user 502 (traditionally normal user account) which created a bit security panic. They have traditions you know :)

    6. Re:Please just stop... by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 will be better. Simply because it's a marketing release. It is Windows Vista relaunched with proper drivers, which is what killed Vista on launch and the stigma stuck. Windows 7 will shed the stigma, and it will work out great for them in the end.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
  27. Re:FUD, but well-deserved by pdusen · · Score: 1

    "New"? Care to elaborate on that? I'm not aware of any that weren't in Vista.

  28. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feed the trolls.

  29. Benchmarking some random shit more like by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    What are we benchmarking, exactly?  And how can I verify it?

    I view all these pre-release type benchmarks as so much aerial masturbation.  It's just nothing.

  30. What are you guys testing anyway? by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current release isn't a release candidate. It's not a beta. It's a PRE-beta. Microsoft have about at least 10 more months until they call Windows 7 done.

    Steven Sinofsky specifically said in his PDC 2008 keynote: "please don't consider this build suitable for benchmarks", but does anyone listen? Nah, let's run the benchmarks! :)

    1. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Nooo! Don't ruin the fun of comparing a technical preview to an RTM release now! ;)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiously enough, they thought it was good enough to be hyped, but not to be independently reviewed.

    3. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      The current release isn't a release candidate. It's not a beta. It's a PRE-beta. Microsoft have about at least 10 more months until they call Windows 7 done.

      /quote> Give or take 5 or 6 years.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    4. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Write an article bashing Microsoft
      Step 2: Get it posted on slashdot
      Step 3: Profit!

      If there is something I've learned about the slashdot crowd (and many other homogeneous online communities) it's that they aren't interested in the facts unless they support their prejudice.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    5. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by adiposity · · Score: 1

      If you release a product, expect benchmarks to be run. Saying, "it's not ready to benchmark" won't stop anyone. It certainly implies that they aren't happy with the performance, though.

      Final judgement will be reserved for the final product, obviously. But 10 months out for a OS is not an unreasonable time to start benchmarking--tweaks will improve things somewhat but a general idea for speed should be attainable. If we don't know until the day Windows 7 is released whether it has any speed improvements, that will be very disappointing.

      It is significant that the OS is showing basically identical performance to Vista, though. This doesn't sound like a product that isn't done--it sounds like a product we already have. If 10 months out, they haven't made any serious changes to performance related code, why should we expect them any time soon? Obviously if it were that easy to speed up Vista code they would have already done it for Vista. And everything points to this basically being repackaged Vista code.

      Trust me, if Intel leaked benchmarks for their upcoming chip 10 months in advance and they showed ZERO improvement, it would be news. Saying, "well this chip isn't really ready for benchmarks" wouldn't change that. Major architectural improvements, whether in software or hardware, cause susbstantial performance differences even if not completely tweaked. It's clear that Windows 7 won't have those.

      -Dan

    6. Re:What are you guys testing anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steven Sinofsky specifically said in his PDC 2008 keynote: "please don't consider this build suitable for benchmarks", but does anyone listen?

      Well, duh. Anyone who would benchmark a pre alpha is, to steal a quote, 'pants on head retarded'.

  31. So, in other words.... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it works on Vista it'll work on W7.

    So, in essence, Windows 7 represents a significant name change from Vista.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:So, in other words.... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If W7 can do the compatibility part right here, it's a good thing, not a reason to look down on it for not being different enough. How typical of Slashdot -- would you honestly ever be able to use the same logic about your favorite OS?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:So, in other words.... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      If it is not a significant change from Vista why not just patch Vista?

      Oh right, cause this is all about marketing.

      I'd swear that the Microsoft marketing department really took their Mojave experiment too seriously.

      Was the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition as major of a change as the difference between Vista and W7?

      Why give a service pack for free when your customers will pay for it?

      I find this highly relevant.

      http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20070715.html
      Kevyn: Okay, my sister wants to hire us to steal Xinchub's body and keep it out of the hands of the U.N.S. military. What could possibly be better than getting paid to desecrate the Fat Man's grave?
      Captain Tagon: Getting paid twice to desecrate the Fat Man's grave.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:So, in other words.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it just be called "Vista Service Pack X" then?

  32. ive always questioned by nimbius · · Score: 0, Redundant

    how a closed system like Windows gets truly benchmarked anyhow. its like having a car with a hood that doesnt open, but seems to go quite a bit faster than your old car.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:ive always questioned by clodney · · Score: 1

      Well if I had a car with a hood that didn't open, but I wanted to benchmark, I could think of a number of things:

      1. How fast will it go? If I don't trust the speedometer I can go to a known course with a stopwatch, or use a radar gun.
      2. What kind of mileage does it get?
      3. What is the stopping distance?
      4. What is the turning radius?

      All of these are things that a driver should rationally care about, and I can measure them without needing to know what is under the hood. Whether it has 4 or 6 cylinders or uses fuel injection is an implementation detail. If it meets my criteria as a driver, why do I care?

      Similarly, why do I need access to the internals of an OS to benchmark the behaviors that are relevant to me as a user of the system? If it turned out to be written in a mix of COBOL and VB6 running on a UCSD p-System interpreter written in Python, but was still 25% faster than XP, would you care?

  33. Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by kklein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, this has bothered me for over a decade.

    What makes anyone think that the next release of an OS is going to be faster? It's not going to be. I don't care who developed it, either, whether it be the giant of Redmond, the hipster of Cupertino, or a bunch of unwashed shut-ins writing lines of code in their moms' basements. Every iteration of an OS is actually going to be slower, and that is just a consequence of it doing more.

    The only real question, then, is if the balance between the added functionality and the slowdown is coming down enough on the functionality side to stop people from getting pissed off. For XP, the balance was nice. For Vista, it's not. For Tiger, it was. For Leopard, I guess it's not for some people (but it is for me). Linux doesn't do anything regardless of distro or update, so it's kind of hard to talk about.

    The point of the story is this: I don't actually care if something doesn't run that fast, because I'll probably replace my hardware before that OS runs its course, and it'll work great on the next kit. All I really care about is if it runs well enough to enjoy the added benefits of that extra code.

    1. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. As the hardware is getting faster, just using the same OS makes things faster over time. The OS developer should aim not to absorb all the hardware improvement with OS syrup.

      If W98 on the best hardware of the day could boot in 30 seconds, I expect Vista on the best hardware of the day to be better.

      And that is just based on the assumption that an OS needs to keep adding features. I would (for example) like my XP to have easier tools for disbaling unwanted startup crap. This could enable it run faster for me most days and would represent an improvement, If SP4 had this, I would regard SP4 as a speedup, even on the same hardware.

    2. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      While I agree, it usually happens that the first version of the code for a particular task just works, while the following versions are more polished, improve speed, reliability, etc.
      They are fond of the "make it work, (then) make it fast, (and then) make it nice" motto.

      BTW, I'm glad that after 10 years you could finally get it out of your chest!

    3. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Woy · · Score: 1

      You sir do not understand computers. The availability of extra features should have no performance impact on the use of old features. Furthermore, refinement of old features should make them run faster. And if it is not so, then you have an architectural problem.

      The problem may be more or less tricky, but the situation is really that simple.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Really? OS X seems to get faster each time.

    5. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by libkarl2 · · Score: 1

      What makes anyone think that the next release of an OS is going to be faster?

      Because a Win7 system requires far more resources to run... faster CPU with more RAM and increased FSB traffic and on and on. If performance does not increase then it's not an upgrade, it's a rip off and a serious disincentive to purchase. It's something I want to know about when making a buying decision.

      It's not going to be. I don't care who developed it, either, whether it be the giant of Redmond, the hipster of Cupertino, or a bunch of unwashed shut-ins writing lines of code in their moms' basements.

      Hmmmm, Windows -> OS-X -> ????

      Are you some sort of professional apologist?

      Every iteration of an OS is actually going to be slower, and that is just a consequence of it doing more.

      More of what? I call BS on that remark. I feel very strongly that you don't know what you are talking about.

      For XP, the balance was nice. For Vista, it's not. For Tiger, it was. For Leopard, I guess it's not for some people (but it is for me).Linux doesn't do anything regardless of distro or update, so it's kind of hard to talk about.

      Windows -> OS-X -> Linux

      Congrats... you just leveled from 2nd rate Asshat to 5th level Douchebag! Your good at this game!

      The point of the story is this:

      You are an idiot.

      All I really care about is if it runs well enough to enjoy the added benefits of that extra code.

      Ooooooh! Windows 7 comes with EXTRA CODE! 30% more FREE code in every disc! WOW! What a value! In my profession, we refer to that as BLOAT! Enjoy your DRM, and don't forget to upgrade your AV every three days!

      --
      You are where you are at the time you are there.
    6. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by stang · · Score: 1

      What makes anyone think that the next release of an OS is going to be faster?

      Because I've seen Microsoft do it before. The Windows 3.1 beta was faster than 3.0, Win3.11/WfWG 3.11 faster still. Win95 OSR2 included some perf tweaks, 98SE was faster than 98, and NT 3.51 was much faster than 3.1 while switching from Program Manager/File Manager to the Start menu and Explorer.

      It's possible. It used to be a bit more common in the old days.

      --
      "200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
    7. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by FoamingToad · · Score: 1

      Just to be pedantic, NT3.51 still retained Program Manager and File Manager - it didn't have the start menu. The start menu was added to NT at version 4 in 1996. ;-)

    8. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Trust me, Apple has hard time selling OS upgrades (major versions) to Windows Switchers.

      Traditionally, Windows needs more CPU, RAM when upgraded and people won't believe an OS upgrade will actually make their system faster. Windows is such a brain washer. I had to prove the Mini G4 boots/performs better when Leopard installed to a friend thanks to Firewire external drive booting capability.

      Same people will never try a different browser (or keep them installed) since they think having 5 browsers in /Applications does something bad to their system (slow down) or their OS even cares about it (except Launch services of course).

      I found myself needlessly rebooting many times thanks to my own Windows brainwashing too.
       

    9. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Better use of multiple processors, of multiple cores, better caching, better multitasking, better use of processors extensions, of GPU, going 64 bits, etc... All of these are non-trivial features that, once implemented, provide a speed up of the OS.

      I mean, on my XP, I had to install software to do efficient COPYING of files. On XP, windows are drawn by using the CPU instead of the GPU. That alone should make Vista more responsive and lightweight. There is plenty of room for windows to get better.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux doesn't do anything regardless of distro or update, so it's kind of hard to talk about.

      This made me smile. Looking around the room I see my home "IT infra": two laptops, a media server, an internet tablet and a router. Only one of these devices can be considered new and high-end -- but surprisingly they all run the latest and greatest releases of their respective linux based operating systems without no problems at all.

      The point of the story is this: I don't actually care if something doesn't run that fast, because I'll probably replace my hardware before that OS runs its course, and it'll work great on the next kit

      Good for you, and your hardware dealer :)

    11. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by Johnny+Loves+Linux · · Score: 1

      >What makes anyone think that the next release of an OS is going to be faster?

      I can't speak for everyone, but as a Linux user I've been conditioned to expect the OS to get better (and yeah that does include the OS to be faster) with each iteration. I don't know if you follow Linux kernel developments but some of the big changes over the years in Linux were things such as how to deal with multiprocessors (when to migrate, how to migrate processes, load balancing, spin locks, semaphores, etc.) and how to schedule processes so each process gets its fair share of the cpu resources (completely fair schedule), what to do with processes that request gigawatts of ram that doesn't exist on the machine, and what to do if the system finally runs out of memory + swap (out of memory killer "oom").

      These aren't all new things, but as a Linux user for 11 years I can tell you that the history I've observed has been for the most part to make things 1) work then 2) work better then 3) work faster.

    12. Re:Why are OSes expected to do more faster? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Trust me, Apple has hard time selling OS upgrades (major versions) to Windows Switchers.

      Switchers must be a small part of OS X's share then, because I'm pretty sure I've seen figures showing that the adoption rate of OS X upgrades is very high, at least compared to Windows. I think it's a bit like Firefox and IE.

      The other thing is that OS X gets updated more regularly, with the same branding, and they aren't as expensive. I think this helps a lot.

  34. marketing exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The change? sed -e 's/Vista/7/g'

    Hey, 7 is shorter than Vista. It must be lighter, right?
     

  35. Re:so? by sveard · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've used XP (feels like I've used it forever), Vista (even longer), and Ubuntu (since 6.04).

    In Ubuntu I rarely had any hardware problems. Ubuntu 8.10 recognizes all hardware without ANY problem. In Windows (same hardware!), I have to install at least 5 different hardware drivers. Mind you that this was not on cheap or obscure hardware.

    The way I see the hardware issue is: a fresh Windows installation needs half a dozen drivers to be installed manually by the user. Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
    1. It Just Works (TM).
    2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.
    Office software: OpenOffice.org? It fits my needs (but I do not use it in a professional context so YMMV)
    Games: agreed, this is Windows turf.
    General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)

  36. Not 100% correct by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%;"

    Indeed , 50% is absurd. But they might speed up 5% or so depending on whether the process schedular and memory management have had a rewrite. For a machine with a lot of processes running and an app using a lot of memory those page and cache miss percentage can make a noticable difference as well as how intellgently the OS swaps in and out processes of varying priorities.

    1. Re:Not 100% correct by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      That's fair, and in fact Vista did have scheduler optimisations go into it (the link for which I can't find). So performance will vary, one hopes for the better.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:Not 100% correct by wisty · · Score: 1

      Yep, anyone who thinks that anything more complicated than a busy spinner (i.e. any program with a few mallocs) can't get a boost from a better OS hasn't done any empirical tests. Yes, the green bar may be at 100%, but that doesn't always mean that the CPU is crunching the tuples that you *want* it to crunch. It's not as important as thrashing the hard drive, but memory allocation (and other system calls) do frigging matter.

    3. Re:Not 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is a schedular? Did you mean scheduler?

    4. Re:Not 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A boost may actually happen if they W7 can optimize it's resources a little bit better. Read up on the new WinMin kernel they are putting under W7 (if they didn't nix it). A kernel running that light should actually give us a good boos over Vista :D

  37. Performance by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    This and the previous /. article link to reports from people who have tested the pre-beta. The results seem pretty clear:
    1) The GUI feels more responsive.
    2) The memory consumption is pretty much the same.
    3) Benchmark tests show little to no difference.
    So Windows 7 will probably be more fun to work with, but based on 2) and 3) you should not expect it to work on lower-ended machines compared to Vista. Overall, it looks like some GUI improvements and not much else.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Performance by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What happens if you install thousands of software titles, remove them, install tens of drivers/updates, remove them, install huge suites like MS Office, update them...

      If I saw "Snow Leopard is 2x faster than Leopard", I wouldn't buy it too. The beta (pre beta) lacks something. Actual, real life usage. Nobody is mad enough to use a pre-beta OS as their main OS. I got MS Virtual PC 7 here with bare bones XP SP3 installed. Trust me, that junk boots faster than your core Duo/Quad real PC because it is very heavily maintained, almost nothing installed, nothing in registry etc.

      What matters is, does it care about how many apps installed, removed, running or not? In Apple's sense, there are some real big, explainable architectural reasons why a Adobe Suite CS4 installed Mac is not different from a cleanly installed Mac. MS just says "we optimised this, we optimised that" without huge underlying changes which will really cost them for a while. Like moving from a single user OS to a Unix OS which runs Mach kernel with a real weird filesystem.

  38. Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft's obsession with backward compatibility is killing it.

    For home and gaming, they need to keep XP and disable it from being used in a business network... let that horse run as far as it can.

    For business and other work, they need to write a brand new kernel and everything and start over learning from all previous mistakes and discarding backward compatibility... natively. Then build a VM compatibility layer with the intent that people will use it in the process of weaning themselves from Win32 and all that backward compatibility and supporting broken applications nonsense.

    Been saying this for a long time and will keep saying it. I said this before Mac OS X was announced. Apple, it would seem, had the same idea and it is working VERY well for them. The compatibility VM sucked bad which actually prompted people to upgrade their apps even faster. And no one stopped using Apple over it. And no one stopped developing software for Apple computers over it. It was a burden on users and developers to make that change, but in the end it was the best move.

    Microsoft is another story. When you are in control of everything, that is precisely what you stand to lose. But ultimately, I see things are coming to a head and Apple sees it too. No matter what Microsoft does, they will lose. They need to make plans to limit their loses and plan for the future -- not just two years of profit forecasting.

    1. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by Informative · · Score: 0
      New releases of windows are no longer about reliability like in the '90s, or helping people get more done (if that was ever true).

      Businesses don't need a new windows. Office and the like run just fine on win2k and xp.

      I can't imagine anyone buying new windows. The only purpose of new releases is to move new PCs off the shelves.

      You just get it with your new PC whether you want it or not. The first time I turned on this two week old laptop, it had an install disk in it for a different OS.

    2. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by libkarl2 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's obsession with backward compatibility is killing it.

      Bingo. At some point they need to just take what they've learned and apply it. Then, let the resulting product be what it will be: unencumbered by the sins of the past.

      I've heard a few war stories about how far they will go to re-implement some bug in a system call, just so a six year old version of Excel, or Lotus Notes will run, only to have new 3rd party software end up relying on the same buggy semantics in said sys-call. Bugs become written in stone, and your syscall namespace becomes a logjam of deprecated features.

      --
      You are where you are at the time you are there.
    3. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by c1t1z3nk41n3 · · Score: 1

      How do you abandon backwards compatibility without severely risking your installed base? Deciding if you want to code your new software for linux, osx, windows or all of the above becomes a very different question when you will have to learn new apis etc. any way you go.

    4. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by HerculesMO · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody was using Apple *to begin with* when they introduced OSX. They had less than 2% market share at the time, and it would have been a moot point to rewrite the handful of applications that worked on the Mac.

      Quark? Photoshop? Final Cut? That's about the extent to which Apple was useful pre-OSX. The idea that people rewrote their applications is ridiculous -- a new spawn of programmers propped up enthralled with the new OS and started developing for it. Go ahead and Google it -- find the big applications that are used for the Mac nowadays -- they are all from NEW developers that never bothered to write a line of code for OS9 or 8.

      That said, Microsoft's money maker is the fact that MOST applications maintain compatibility while giving more technological advantages over the previous OS. Windows XP for corporations, introduced desktop policy setting, active directory, centralized user management and control, and more. Don't think of the OS as important -- it's a delivery mechanism for their technologies. And some corporations are very happy with what they have in Windows XP/2003 Server for active directory control, user control and creation, etc.

      Vista now gives you 'preferences' which allows you to change EVEN MORE in a centralized manner. People don't realize this because they all use it as a desktop OS, but in a corporate world these changes are valuable and useful. The backward compatibility is also with their OWN stuff, so while it's a nice idea to drop everything, create a VM for the apps etc -- it's unrealistic and would let Microsoft die in a fire. I'm sure many people here would love to see that, but it's not realistic to think that.

      Apple's are great PCs for certain tasks, but there's nothing you cannot do in a Mac (or Linux) that Windows can't do. Now whether it does it BETTER is a different situation, and I'll fully admit I'd rather (and DO) have my website hosted on Apache with a RHEL backend and MySQL database because it's STABLE and it's FREE. I'd rather do video editing and audio editing on a Mac because the applications are better suited for that task.

      But I can do all of that on Windows too. And that's why it's going to continue to sell, and they won't change a working formula. They are only building up the pieces AROUND Windows that make it a success -- and that includes Office, Sharepoint, System Center, BizTalk, and more all to tie your organization in, to use MS technologies that all leverage one another, and in comparison to some competitors -- are actually cheaper too.

      It's not just Windows. People really need to get that.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    5. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of people didn't switch from MacOS Classic to OS X because it didn't run their old apps well. Many of these people ended up on Windows, and a few on other platforms. OS X did well, because it was a minority OS and so osmotic pressure in the userbase meant there was a large potential market for people switching from other operating systems. A lot more people who use OS X now never used classic MacOS than did (just compare the before and after market share figures).

      Microsoft does not have this option. The main reason people use Windows is because it runs their software. If you have the choice between staying with XP, going to some MS OS that doesn't run your old software, or switching to some other OS, then most people will stay with XP until it's EOL'd and then switch either to the new MS OS or to some other OS (possibly ReactOS if they're still wanting to use XP software in 2014). They would need to offer some very compelling features to make people stay with Windows.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      For business and other work, they need to write a brand new kernel and everything and start over learning from all previous mistakes and discarding backward compatibility... natively.

      There's a law: the less important a problem is, the more people discuss it. Hence the droves of people chiming in and spreading wisdom about Vista's kernel and DRM issues. Neither of which are actually issues at all.

      The kernel of Windows is in fact a great piece of work. There's no reason to rewrite the kernel in the least. And Windows 7 is improving the kernel.

      The problem is tuning the stacks above the kernel. Knowing which services to run by default, and when. Tuning ReadyBoost and SuperFetch to not fetch files you don't need, and fetch those you do. Making system cache not choke the application RAM availability. Making more features of Aero run on hardware (did you know the glass blue effect in Vista is software? Windows 7 fixes that).

      And they're getting there, as you'll see yourself soon enough.

    7. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "no matter what Microsoft does, they lose." If they keep following this point, people will continue rejecting "Mojave" or whatever they are calling it now (Dear Microsoft: it's not the name people dislike, it's the product.) and keep looking to alternatives... presently, Apple is becoming a very happy beneficiary of pissed-off Windows users.

      No matter WHAT Microsoft does, they lose. They have been passing up opportunities to remake the Windows kernel since Windows 2000 and have decided against it consistently since then. But had they done it long ago, people would have remained Microsoft fans and it would have been FAR less risky. But now people are already looking to alternatives in growing numbers. At this point, Microsoft risks more by staying than by changing.

    8. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true Microsoft fan-boy. It's okay. I was a Microsoft fan-boy too. When I discovered that Windows unified printer and display drivers meaning that I didn't have to scrounge various dialup BBSes to find support for my graphics card, my printer or my sound card for this or that application, I was singing the praises of Microsoft for years on end. And Windows just kept getting better... I too waited in line outside of CompUSA when Windows95 was released. It was HUGE. Of course, I have since re-evaluated that view... the scape has changed. "Good enough" means something entirely different to me now.

      Vista may offer a lot of interesting things, but it is missing some really important things. One is the fact that nothing REQUIRES Vista. Everything works fine or better under Windows XP. Therefore there is no true business case for Vista. Another thing it is missing is the fact that people don't like it. It may be awesome for you. I'm glad you like it. I used to like shiny new things too. But most people simply don't want to be interrupted with change these days... (unless of course, the status quo is unbearable... this is why Obama got elected -- McCain was perceived as more of the status quo or possibly worse. No one likes change unless they REALLY hate the way things are. People don't REALLY hate Windows XP and so they don't want to change.)

      So ultimately, as Microsoft has proven numerous times, technical superiority in whatever terms you may define it are meaningless. OS/2 was superior in its day... people didn't buy it. The Amiga was superior in its day as well... people didn't buy it. I don't like Vista either, frankly but I will admit that I haven't given it a "fair shake" yet either... we don't want it and we don't buy it... in fact, we will PAY EXTRA not to have it.

      You could argue that it wouldn't be practical for Microsoft to rewrite their OS *and* their applications and ask everyone else to do the same... you could be right. But I think the path Microsoft is going down now has a far more clear and obvious end to it.

    9. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every once in awhile an idiot like you comes along, who really doesn't understand a single god damn thing about the NT kernel, but that's OK because YOU know the answers.

      People like this would not have modded you insightful. It is the ignorant troll who does.

    10. Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over by rastilin · · Score: 1

      "How do you abandon backwards compatibility without severely risking your installed base? Deciding if you want to code your new software for linux, osx, windows or all of the above becomes a very different question when you will have to learn new apis etc. any way you go."

      QFT

      In his second post on the subject Joel Spolksy makes a brilliant point about how this works in practice. If you have no software, you won't get users. That means that in all probability, you'll crash and burn before you get anywhere regardless of weather you're making Operating Systems, Processor Architectures or Consoles. Microsoft's success is due to a large degree to the fact that software, even old software, runs on their machines.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
  39. Re:so? by andy19 · · Score: 1

    My current employer is going to be 'upgrading' all the computers in the organization to Vista sometime in early 2009.
    Not surprising to me, given the knowledge and competency of the IT group.

  40. It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The very interesting thing about OS X 10.5 (Leopard) boot process is: It does nothing in order. It is parallel booting, firing all OS startup stuff at once and expects to do their jobs. That happens thanks to launchd architecture which I have no clue why not adopted by Linux or *BSD.

    Here is its presentation by the inventor of launchd
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1781045834610400422
    (in 8:00")

    That is one of underrated features/changes of Leopard. Now the term "photocopy" comes from this: They do something like launchd without using the underlying Unix logic and architecture. So, there is a huge chance that it won't be scaled. I have really lost count of how many kernel extensions, startup items, daemons running on my Leopard but it boots exactly same speed as it was cleanly installed for first time. Just like I really don't care about 1000+ .plist (pref) files on my user directory.

    They named it "parallel booting" or something, some story about it on http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9119230&intsrc=hm_list

    1. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like that would make a hell of a lot of sense in Linux (and wouldn't be too hard to do, even if only on your own system).

      Set up init to take a suspend-to-disk snapshot and write it to disk just before launching xdm/gdm/kdm (or after KDE finishes startup, whatever you like). Then on future boots, don't invalidate the disk image until something does it manually (the package manager after updating /etc/init.d, or the user after tinkering with startup scripts or the kernel). Suspend-to-disk already deals with finicky kernel modules and reestablishing network connections, so it should work fine. This would cut out a huge section of kernel and init boot-up time.

    2. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yeah and as a bootcamp user I really wish it fetched network time on boot. Can Apple 'xerox' that from another OS?

      Was that comment too subtle?

    3. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Windows has been performing parallel boot of device drivers and services since Windows XP RTM in 2001. Who broke out the "photocopier" again?

    4. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Sounds something like Concurrent booting.

    5. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Launchd was ported to FreeBSD as a Summer of Code project a few years ago. The license was changed to the ASL 2.0 in order to encourage its adoption. Last I checked, Launchd could not replace init as PID 1, but it could do all of the post-launch stuff. The main reasons why it hasn't been integrated into the FreeBSD base system are that it doesn't provide much compelling over RCng as an init replacement (although it replaces a lot more than just init) and it would mean rewriting the RC scripts for a huge number of ports.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Apple boot process does way more than the device drivers and services in async way, not exactly parallel. That happens thanks to launchd architecture. There is a direct architectural difference between both operating systems. Every single thing is fired at once and expected to take care of itself, independently. It is way more than XP's parallel driver loading. If it was the case, XP would boot way faster than Win 2k which I can assure you, it doesn't. Leopard does boot way faster without a single second of "freeze" unlike Tiger on same hardware.

      Hopefully MS didn't remove the parallel booting of device drivers after XP RTM. They gave up some great things for mysterious reasons, check the Cairo Project done back in 1990s.

    7. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      After Leopard, everything (Except kernel_task) is launchd now. Every single process has launchd as parent. It was different on Tiger. Even iPhone runs launchd on that deep level.

        Launchd looks extremely good for server oriented stuff, that is why I wonder why not adopted. I mean, hopefully it is a purely technical reason as you describe, not political of any kind.

      Of course, if Apple doesn't update documentation at their pages like http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPSystemStartup/Articles/BootProcess.html , I end up giving video references which is not really helpful. For example there shouldn't be any reason to reboot after kernel extension installation on Leopard and driver vendors still insist the old way of doing things even including manual removal of kernel extensions cache. I think Apple should explain things better before Redmond comes up with more "inventions" and millions of unnecessary boots.

    8. Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      You mean Windows or OS X? Because OS X will likely fail (first time) trying to get network time because it doesn't even have IP yet. Until I figured out the real reason (async/parallel boot) I was watching my mac booting and saying "Idiot, you don't even have IP yet" to my computer. After watching that presentation, I figured it is part of that philosophy. Launch the ntpd process, let it take care of itself and only intervene if it crashes. Eventually, with a real IP, ntpd does get the time fine and exit until relaunched by launchd. If it was the windows logic, system would sit and wait for ntpd (Windows Time Service) to do its job adding more to boot process.

  41. Re:so? by CrispBH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (especially given that OpenOffice is at least as good as MS Word)

    Afraid I've got to interject here. I'm in the early stages of writing a dissertation, and OOo3 Writer just does not have the same feature set as even Word 2003 (which I'm using for it, under wine) for serious document composure.

    I use Linux and have done for years, as my only OS, and I've used and support OOo and have done for years. I can't comment on the other portions of either office suite, because I've never put them to serious work. But, having spent a few hours really teaching myself Word 2003, then trying to see where the same functionality was in Writer, it became apparent that some of it just wasn't there.

    It's a shame, but until OOo Writer gets (for example) something akin to Outline mode, it's just not able to match Word for advanced features. That said, OOo is very solid software, and will get there with regards to said features sooner or later I'm sure. Some may even say I'm using the wrong tool for the job.

  42. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I couldn't agree more.

    Linux is a great O/S and makes wonderful servers but as a desktop it just doesn't have the software. I earn my living using Photoshop, Cubase, Sound Forge and CD Architect.

    I really couldn't care less what O/S my desktop runs just as long as I can get my work done. Sadly the Linux equivalents don't yet cut the mustard so I too am stuck with XP.

    Linux is a great operating system which is only missing professional desktop applications.

  43. Performance by XavidX · · Score: 1

    Well lets look at history.
    Wind 98 needed more powerful Computer to run it after windows 95
    windows xp needed more a powerful Computer to run it after windows 98
    Vista ... well I think we all know what we think of vista. But generally we would have thought you would need a better computer to run vista. Its just all the bugs.

    So now if Windows 7 Has more features, is stable and as bug free as any version of windows can be, and offers the same performance as vista.

    It might actually have good perfomance when running on a low end machine at the time of its release.

  44. Fortune at the bottom of the page when I read this by 68kmac · · Score: 1

    An editor is one who separates the wheat from the chaff and prints the chaff. -- Adlai Stevenson

  45. Re:so? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Oh hell I gave up on PC games a LONG time ago. the PS3/Xbox360/Wii kicks the computers ass hard in gaming. In fact when you find out that UT3 will let you use a mouse and keyboard to play , you end up fragging all the n00bs playing with the sixaxis controller easily.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  46. Re:so? by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Afraid I've got to interject here. I'm in the early stages of writing a dissertation, and OOo3 Writer just does not have the same feature set as even Word 2003 (which I'm using for it, under wine) for serious document composure.

    I don't think the document cares which software you use. So maybe you might use a certain program for serious composition, but never for composure. I hope your dissertation isn't for an English class.
    Composure = state of mind.
    Composition = the act/result of composing.( root - composite)
    Besides which, investing hours in learning Word and then trying OOorg is hardly fair. Why would you waste your time by learning one program then using another ? Try doing it the other way around in future.

  47. Practical joke... by Shivinski · · Score: 1

    ...you just wait until you buy it, you'll get a microsoft employee jump out at you from behind the counter, after you hand over your money, and go
    "SURPRISE!! We fooled you! You actually thought you where getting a new OS!.. HA! You're just paying for Vista and very expensive plastic packaging"

  48. Re:so? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Whiner :-).

    In my generation, people used TeX and troff and thanked their lucky stars that they didn't have to type their PhD dissertations on a type-writer.

    My honors project report was submitted in long-hand.

  49. So, why isn't a service pack then? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it is only minor improvements, then why is it not a service pack, or like 95 and 98 SE versions?

    Why do you feel these small chances are worth another full price release?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:So, why isn't a service pack then? by Narpak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I am sure Microsoft is eager to try and milk the product a bit more, as I understand it Vista didn't sell nearly as well as they had hoped. If they could get about the same number of sales on a repacking of the product (sold at max price) they'll get a few more dollars in the bank before they cease producing Operating Systems.

      Why a consumer would actually pay for it is another matter.

    2. Re:So, why isn't a service pack then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I keep wondering the same thing regarding OSX. Every few months they charge a few hundy for a point-release update, full of new bugs and failure. And yet, the Apple community is HAPPY to pay for it.

      Win7, if you had bothered to read ANYTHING about it, will be substantially different in many areas. The underlying code is built on Vista, but a great many components are rewritten. It's sufficiently different enough that it will be a new version.

      So if you have such a problem with it, start on Apple. If you succeed in getting them to "switch" their fraudulent business practices, I'll join in when you start questioning Microsoft and their motives.

    3. Re:So, why isn't a service pack then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista "outsold" both Teh Lunix and OSX -combined- during it's first week of commercial release.

      I'd say that sounds like a success. Of a sort, anyway. It must be nice to be Microsoft- the only operating system they need to focus on competing with is the last version they released. As for any "complaints" about Vista... maybe people should try out Windows Mojave before they consider a new computer purchase.

  50. In other news... by doob · · Score: 1

    My facial expression shows little surprise.

    --
    In the spoon, there is no Soviet Russia!
    1. Re:In other news... by Dude+McDude · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that expression will change when you look up and see Ceiling Cat watching you masturbate.

  51. Re:so? by Inovaovao · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Then, at least for games, performance is VERY important, so if Windows 7 doesn't compare to Win XP in terms of performance the gaming argument doesn't help anymore.

  52. Re:so? by mdhoover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Driver support in linux is pretty damn good nowadays, and most vendors do either provide code or at least help the kernel team with drivers.

    That being said, gaming is pretty much not gonna happen on a linux box without using nvidia hardware and the closed source nvidia drivers...

    Thank god at least some gaming companies DO do a linux port, such as ID (Wolf, ET, Doom3, QW:ET) and EPIC (ut*), but for the rest it is the pain of wine/cedega/etc...

    For gaming it still means keeping a windows partition around for the most part...

  53. Goodness me, what a Vista apologist by Teckla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently tried Vista (for the second time) because so many monkeys like you keep telling us Vista is much, much better now.

    What a bunch of hooey. Vista still makes my (pretty nice) laptop run like a dog. From slow video, to audio stuttering, to far too much hard drive thrashing, to disappointing program startup times...hell, sometimes I can't even track my mouse across the screen without it pausing half way while Vista does God knows what.

    And yes, my laptop is "Vista compatible", and yes, I had all the correct drivers installed for my hardware.

    I went back to XP (again) and the performance is so much improved, it's like getting a new computer.

    Sorry, buddy, but Vista still sucks, despite your claims otherwise. And if Windows 7 is more of the same, I'm going to have to tell Microsoft, "Thanks, but no thanks."

    1. Re:Goodness me, what a Vista apologist by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Sorry, buddy, but Vista still sucks, despite your claims otherwise.

      Yeah, and I demand to know why XP doesn't run as well as Windows 3.1 on my Pentium-66.

    2. Re:Goodness me, what a Vista apologist by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why can't I get Vista to crash and run slow like you can?

    3. Re:Goodness me, what a Vista apologist by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Why can't I get Vista to crash and run slow like you can?

      Maybe you didn't test it on this or this or this?

      Go ahead and tell me it's because these computers aren't "modern". I love that one.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Goodness me, what a Vista apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea... ok, you claim you have a pretty nice laptop, yet you don't mention the specs. Im using a amd 1.9GHz x2 cpu with 3 gigs of ram and a 120gb hd with an ati 3100 graphics card and vista runs just fine! All you idiots that complain about how slow vista is need to throw away your 10 year old pc and get a new, or stop being such an idiot. I have been using vista since the RTM and I have only had 1 problem that I haven' been able to fix by using google to find an answer.

  54. Re:so? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your loss. There's no way that a RTS can be enjoyable on a console.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  55. Re:so? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    If you're the kind of person who has to hunt down drivers because you don't know what's in your computer, you have a pre-made computer that comes with a restore disc.

    People don't build their own computer and go "oh, do I need drivers? how do I get those?"

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  56. Re:so? by Clairvoyant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's funny; I though the article was about the operating system and not the market that was created around it. In terms of "support", Linux is far better than Windows. It's the support of the environment of the OS that's the problem. Linux supports gaming. Only the games hardly "support Linux". Devices are very well supported on Linux. Windows does hardly support any device at all out-of-the-box. It's the drivers that you get on the friggin CDs (where do I get a USB CD drive these days?) or downloadable from a website that add the support. Office software (I suppose the only office software you know of is Microsoft's office) all support nearly any OS including Windows. If you consider all office software, support is quite nicely spread.

  57. Re:so? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    You say that consoles kick a PC's ass then go on to describe how you attach a keyboard and mouse, therefore turning your console into a pc and "frag all the noobs".

  58. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just fyi, AMD drivers on linux are in much better state right now. Open-source 3D accel is working fine up to R500's; R600's and 700's are being worked on. The proprietary driver is evolving quite fast as well, and gives quite nice performance (well, enough for laptop-gaming).

    Nvidia drivers dropped support for eg. Geforce 4 MX - the card I happen to have in my machine. With the fact, that opensource nv driver has no acceleration, well, go figure.

    As a sidenote, I wanted to play Deus Ex 2, so I installed WinXP, man, Mobility Radeon X1400 is madness to get work under Windows... AMD's official drivers just refuse to install, you need .NET2.0, and I had to dug trough Dell's page to get (2 years old) driver to make it actually work. Tell me something about vendor support...

  59. Re:so? by Clairvoyant · · Score: 1

    "But, having spent a few hours really teaching myself Word 2003, then trying to see where the same functionality was in Writer, it became apparent that some of it just wasn't there."

    Have you also tried it the other way around? OO.o has many features that are either broken or absent in Microsoft Office.
    It does not support Word's backwards incompatibility either. Is that a bad thing?

  60. Re:so? by heelrod · · Score: 1

    How many companies you work for?

    Lot's of companies use Windows Vista.

    dork

  61. Re:so? by sveard · · Score: 1

    I'm having a hard time figuring out what the point of your post is (language barrier on my end). Are you implying that I do not know what hardware I use? Because I do. I'm not looking to flame or start an argument, I genuinly do not understand.

    In any case, such a restore disc becomes useless when you install a newer version of your operating system (xp -> vista for example, although why would you do that? ;)).

  62. Re:so? by mdhoover · · Score: 1

    I hear you, the radeonhd driver is coming along nicely, but the 3D support ain't gonna be there for at least 6 months (best case) or more...
    For the moment its nvidia closed source or nothing with newer hardware...

  63. Who cares if it's slower? by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares if it's a few percent slower?

    Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now! I was running Windows 98, which is much slower than Vista, but guess what - my Vista machine is still about 16 times faster than my old Windows 98 machine and it has 32 times more memory. I'm certainly not complaining.

    I don't really see why it's a problem if any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.

  64. Re:so? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shouldn't you use LaTeX for writing your dissertation anyway?
    Word always gave up on me on large documents with a lot of content.

  65. Re:so? by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are loads and loads of scientists/students who still prefer [La]TeX to a graphical word processor any day. There's something about expressing your ideas straight away in a fast and light editor, and producing professional quality documents without any graphical tweaks, rather than wasting memory and processing power for a glorified Paint while praying it not to crash.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  66. Serious composition on Word? by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is a joke or what? Come back at the later stages of composition, when you have some real experience.

    In case you want to listen, I'll tell you what'll happen. Word featureset becomes absolutely irrelevant after all its bugs start appearing and bitting you. Open Office, while less featurefull is functional, so you'll experience the same productivity from the beggining to the end of the composition.

    Anyway, both are bad. If you really care about your productivity, you should learn some good document editing software, like LaTeX, for example.

    1. Re:Serious composition on Word? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      LaTeX is not "document editing software"...

  67. why support Windows at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys... just install OS X or Ubuntu. Windows 7 is more AIDS riddled crap that not will only continue to crash but will also take everything down with it when it does. What's the point of supporting an OS whose only advantage is gaming.

    1. Re:why support Windows at all? by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      What's the point of supporting an OS whose only advantage is gaming.

      Gee I dunno.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
  68. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RadeonHD is... crap, if you pardon me. I am using xf86-video-ati driver, that's the old one. I guess they are gonna get R600 sooner than RadeonHD:

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Phoronix/~3/W8Dp-gGv760/vr.php

  69. Re:so? by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Linux is like the Mooncup: a nice idea, but messy and not for the squeamish. In fact, Linux can be likened to a Mooncup-using redhaired hippie girlfriend who lives in a house in the country she built herself from twigs and has very strong ideas on how everything should be and has all her original body hair. The sex is fantastic, but only if she thinks the astrological conditions are perfect. And the house has a hand-dug latrine, so she's propped a toilet bowl on top and thinks that's "user friendliness."

    Windows, however, is like a nice normal bottle-blonde girlfriend who has a proper office job and dresses cleanly from Primark and has a sweet smile and lives in a proper bedsit and knows everyone and how to act normally and is accepted in society. She gets headaches a lot and fits of rage where she smashes everything and there's an odd smell of decaying human flesh coming from the drains and the toilet backs up every now and then filling the entire block with sewage and bits of bodies, but this is entirely normal and nothing to worry about.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  70. Ahh another round by CharleyHinton · · Score: 2

    Forewarning: The same dinks that are going to talk Windows 7 down, before they have the slightest clue about it, will also use XP as their weapon of choice to chop Windows 7 down with. XP happens to be the same tool they bashed years ago when it was released. Now they need it to try and mak an argument? HAHA. The cycle never changes, it just starts again.

  71. Re:so? by ORBAT · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh yeah? Well I had to ski uphill to school (both ways) while fighting off rabid sabre-toothed tigers with my bare hands, and on top of that I had to work for 25 hours a day at the nuclear asbestos factory.

    And our numeral system didn't even have a 0. Damn you youngins and your fancy numbers.

  72. Re:so? by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 1
    I've also used both OO and Word for academic work and agree with you. However, I suggest you switch to Latex. Your school probably has Latex class files and templates. There is a small learning curve but it's worth it.

    Or you could be like my friend and try to do everything with Google docs until you realize it won't indent correctly because it's HTML..

  73. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's saying that anyone that would ever be looking for drivers would already have them anyway (since they built the computer themselves).

    I disagree with his point, but that's what he meant.

  74. 40% Slower Result Produced on Bogus System by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

    They only tested with up to 256, 512, and 1024 MB of RAM available for the OS and apps. Yes, Vista is much much slower than XP if you have 256, 512, or 1024 MB of RAM. If you look at results with 2 or 4 gigs of RAM, using identical systems for XP and Vista, things look a lot different. App speed is roughly on par (app loading is much faster in Vista), and system responsiveness is certainly higher under Vista for a system with 4 gigs of RAM.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    1. Re:40% Slower Result Produced on Bogus System by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

      Which just goes to show, this isn't about Microsoft improving its OS or bringing out new and compelling features, it's about keeping revenue streams flowing to OEMs and peripheral manufacturers.

      This also shows a massive disconnect with their target audience as:

      1) Most people view their computer as an appliance, something that shouldn't need upgrades or outright replacements every two years.

      2) Marketing needs to be complemented with education. You can't sell computers like they were washers and dryers, with Joe Sixpack plugging naked Windows PCs into the interwebs, clicking for free pr0n, mp3z and the like, and *not* engineer in security first. No one should expect the buying public to subscribe to the most common solution put forward, particularly given #1, above and #3, below.

      3) People are living in fear in the current economic climate. Both hardware and software vendors need to realize this and act accordingly, not like it's still the boom years before the dotcom bust.

      My take?

      MS should hunker down, really rewrite things in such a way that the OS is leaner, more secure, works with a less demanding hardware set, has features that really mean something to the common user, quit putting in backdoor DRM, and rein in those quarterly earnings expectations.

      Then world will say "Thank you!".

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
  75. What a bunch of retards... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

    Pre-beta, development code is *as fast as the current production product*?!?!? ...and this is a BAD thing???

    Are you guys high, stupid, or just plain retarded?

    If this is what we have as a *PRE-BETA*, then by all rights, the final release should *really* blow Vista (and perhaps even XP) out of the water.

    Lay off the crack, guys.

  76. Don't know... by michrech · · Score: 1

    ...how many people are going to see this way down here, but I'll post anyway.

    I don't understand why people are expecting any performance gains in "Windows 7". They took Vista and added more eye-candy (though, to be honest, some of it looks rather interesting to me). Unless they change some of the base of the code (to lean it up), it's going to perform exactly as Vista does (as has been shown in all of the "speed tests" that have been performed to date).

    --
    bork bork bork!
  77. Since the Mojave Experiment worked... by argent · · Score: 1

    ...it's no surprise that they're trying it in RL.

    Rename the product, make some minor changes in the UI, it worked so well for Windows Me.

  78. Re:so? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    Obviously not the same 4% that you work for

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Vista-shunned-in-business-survey/0,130061733,339292397,00.htm?feed=pt_ie7

    And before you go off into a rant - 4% is not acceptance, it's a margin of error.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  79. You're right by abigsmurf · · Score: 1
    How silly of him. MS DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows XP don't have any additional features over the any other version! It's just clever marking from Microsoft that prevents us from using DOS!

    His opinion based on personal perference doesn't make him anything. It does however make you an asshat and a douche for judging someone on what OS' they prefer.

    Enjoy your completely exposed install of Linux if you're not running regularly update security software. The only reason Linux doesn't get Malware is because it isn't worth the author's time, not because it's magically immune

  80. Perspective by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)

    Well, as with several other stuff, it's just a matter of perspective.

    If by general acceptance, you specifically restrict to PC compatible computers. Yes, there aren't many Linux installation around (well except if you work in a Linux-oriented shop, like research, academics, etc.) Just, like Intel has a quasi-monopoly on CPUs for these machines.

    But if you extend your definition to the more broad concept of linux being executed on an electronic device, the situation is completely different : you'll suddenly realise that the Penguin is already everywhere.
    Just take DSL routers : there's currently one in almost each house here around. Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, ... most brands of routers run Linux.
    In several european country, DSL ISPs are even bundling own-branded "{name_of_ISP}-Box" routers for VoIP / IPTV and Internet running embed Linux.

    Yes currently Mac OS X and Linux only account for less than 30% of the market share, leaving more than 70% Windows Box. But the 100% total of those are connected to the net using boxes which 99.9% of the time run Linux.

    Same goes for lots of the Media box connected to your TV set. Unless you built your own Windows Media Center HTPC, chances are, you bought a ready-to-use box.
    In the USA, that is most likely a TiVo. Which runs Linux. Here in Europe, you probably bought from MediaMarkt one of those countless dead-cheap miniITX-based "add your own harddisk" noname asian box. Which most probably runs Linux too.

    Same in an enterprise : the desktops will be probably running XP. The servers could be running Server 2003. But the routers, the cheap RAID/NAT box, the noname small network-to-printer bridges, and lots of other small electronic gizmo are running some form of embed linux.

    On the desktop, Linux is facing strong competition from Windows and Mac OS X. On the other hand, in the embed market Linux is only facing what is basically a big mess of hundreds of small ad-hoc firmwares, with no clear leader, and that lot of manufacturer are dumping in favor of Linux, simply because it offers them a much better, more coherent and easier to maintain platform to work with.
    Currently if you want to build some network-enabled gadget, either you re-invent the wheel and built your own solution. Or you just slap Linux with some micro server on it.

    Trolls are still waiting for "the year of the Linux Desktop". They just missed that "the year of the Linux gizmo" has already happened long before.

    If you look at electronics at a whole, Linux is suddenly a much stronger leader.

    Just as, if you look at electronics at a whole, the battle for CPU dominance has long ago been lost to ARM & MIPS.
    (with a bunch of PICs occupying a significant place for an even broader definition of electronics)

    --

    Beside....

    Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
    1. It Just Works (TM).
    2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.

    And in lots of distribution, its just a matter of adding a new repository with additional drivers.

    With some distro like openSUSE, that's basically just clicking on a ".ymp" link at the end of the explanation page on their wiki, and everything (adding the repository, installing the packages, etc.) is handled automagically.
    That's it. Info page -> Click -> Installed.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Perspective by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering the amount of people that do their own clean installs of windows are probably statistically in line with those that install Linux on their desktops, most people use their restore CDs which come with their drivers. Also, you aren't likely to get a version of Linux from 2002 installed with hardware support for stuff that came out in 2005 any more than with XP. Adding repositories isn't particularly easier than downloading drivers either. The hardest part is finding them.

      Don't get me wrong, I love linux, and use it a lot. I also really like Windows for the most part as well. I don't like MS' politics, I don't care for UAC and Defender soaking my resources either. But windows does have a consistent set of APIs to program against, and with abstraction layers like .Net it gets even nicer to program against. Visual Studio is second to none when it comes to IDEs as well, which probably accounts for a lot more than the platform in question.

      I really don't care too much what I run on my desktop, my main apps at home are Thunderbird, Firefox, X-Chat, and Pidgin. They run on everything (for the most part). All my work is done in VMs, so as long as the OS runs VMWare, I'm fine. In fact, I moved my main apps onto a nettop, so I wouldn't have to sync my mail profile anymore... works well.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  81. Re:so? by battery111 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I too have a bit of a problem with OOo3. I am currently deployed, and my leadership puts out a newsletter to families back home every month to let them know what we're up to, how we're doing, etc. They write it in word, as some sort of a publication format (not written in publisher, but similar style). These newsletters NEVER format correctly in OOo3. Now this is not really OOo3's fault, so much as microsoft and their propriety, but it still illustrates the existing compatibility problems. I hope this type of thing is fixed in the future, but for now, it just doesn't work for me for everything.

  82. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the heck is this Randall Kennedy guy? First, Windows 7 IS using the same kernel as Windows Vista. Why would he expect any differences here? Secondly, it's unfair to compare a pre-beta, debug build against a release build.

    This guy shouldn't be writing technical articles when he's not qualified.

  83. Linux vindicates free markets. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish I could be as unpopular as Vista. I think they have sold at least 10 billion dollars worth of them over the last two years.

    I bet KDE wishes they could be as successful as Vista. What's the conversion rate between KDE 3 users and KDE 4 users? I'd bet that less of a percentage of KDE users have converted to KDE 4 than XP users have converted to Vista.

    But... that's really the whole point of Linux, isn't it.

    I bet Perl wishes they could be as successful as Vista. How's Perl 6 doing these days?

    You could look at those and other examples of floundering FOSS projects and say that Linux has failed but you would be as wrong as can be. The great irony, of course is that the for all of its "socialist" trappings, Linux has more of the traits of a healthy free market eco-system than Vista does. Vista succeeds because its conversions are forced on one hand, but its a mono-culture and the entire thing either sinks or swim depending upon how much the mono-culture is accepted. Linux is made up of thousands of tiny pieces, and so, even if Perl 6 or KDE flounder, then, there's plenty of other people willing to take up the slack in other projects. Linux is like a free market economy because the whole system doesn't fail - just pieces of it, and that creative floundering and risk taking that it encourages drives its innovation. On the other hand, Vista has all the trappings of a socialist project - Microsoft leaders are writing blog articles suggesting that Microsoft has too much of an individual culture, everyone has to play as a team, and they really can't turn loose any of the individual Vista teams to pursue their own audiences because there is an artificial brake of Microsoft corporate hierarchy, politicized and fief building, all pushing developers down.

    --
    This is my sig.
  84. Slashdot on Other Things... by akoltz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot on an unfinished construction project: "One year after beginning the project, the construction company THREATENS to deliver a building that is unbearably cold and has CRIPPLING compatibility problems with my electronics." Slashdot on Obama: "Weeks after being elected the next President, Obama, the successor to the LEAST POPULAR PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, has failed to end the war in Iraq and fix the economy. He promised a new direction for the country but SO FAR things are EERILY similar to the Bush administration."

  85. You can't be serious by wicka · · Score: 1

    This hack is running benchmarks on a pre-alpha version of Windows 7 and you people are agreeing with his conclusions? I know you guys reach for straws when it comes to anything that makes Linux sound a bit better, but this is a new adventure in incompetence.

  86. Hardware Compatibility? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is trying to maintain maximum backwards compatibility with Vista in order to avoid the nightmare that was Vista. Mucking around in the innards of the kernel is probably a good way to break hardware drivers. No, I think Microsoft is going to rely on processor improvements to increase the use-ability of Windows 7.

  87. This is M$ - Should be tagged "Haha" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't news, just shows how M$ can't compete with free software. M$ will continue down the same path of destruction as a former convicted monopolist dealing with non-free software such as Windoze, Offi$e, Xbox, play$ for $ure, and every other M$ failure. Adobe and every other non-free software will follow suit and the free software advocates will get the last laugh so tag on with "haha" on all M$ failures as well as all failures of non-free software supporters.

    --
    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
    Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

    1. Re:This is M$ - Should be tagged "Haha" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Nudges Anonymous Coward*

      Wake up....wake up! You're talking in your sleep again!

  88. I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by protolink · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 is, in fact staggeringly fast and responsive. The testing that these people have done is just incredibly irrelevant. In Vista x64, it takes about 4 seconds to launch Firefox, on a clean install for me. In windows 7 Build 6801 for me, it is INSTANT. Same with every other application I have launched from Windows 7. This is not to mention the fantastic new taskbar and much improved and "cleaned" explorer, as well as the new tray and window management, which is extremely useful. I'm sick of the hate. This is a fantastic release.

    1. Re:I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by devjj · · Score: 1

      You mean your old and used installation of Windows isn't as fast as a fresh and clean installation of Windows? I seem to recall that happening with 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, ohh... you get the idea.

    2. Re:I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because he couldn't possibly be comparing it to a clean install of Vista, right?

    3. Re:I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by devjj · · Score: 1

      No, because a fresh install of Vista does launch Firefox nearly instantly. Just like a fresh install of Vista launches Firefox nearly instantly.

    4. Re:I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't. It just, doesn't. I have 3 clean installs on this system. XP, Vista, Windows 7. Windows 7 is the fastest.

    5. Re:I beg to differ: Win7 is FAST by protolink · · Score: 1

      Not to mention windows 7 is installed on the slowest drive in the system: a 160GB IDE drive.

  89. It's a pre-beta, be patient GAWD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of you hater blowhards clearly just don't know what you're talking about. OF COURSE Windows 7 will be faster than the current pre-beta. It's routine for betas to be compiled with extra debugging code and preliminary non-optimized routines. Every beta I've seen ends up improving in speed toward the end of the cycle, although in many cases the real optimizations aren't put into effect until just before the first release candidate. Just hang on for the ride a while longer, or if you just love to chuckle at Microsoft's perceived misfortunes, enjoy the most, but be prepared to eat a least a little crow by next year.

  90. Re:so? by eyecorporations · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Composure Com*po"sure\, n. [From Compose.] 1. The act of composing, or that which is composed; a composition.

  91. Re:so? by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 1

    You use a word processor to compose a document?, I'm surprised you don't use latex

  92. Re:so? by Locklin · · Score: 1

    MS Word just does not have the same feature set as ...LaTeX ... for serious document composure.

    Fixed that for you. Seriously?? Word and "serious document composition" just don't belong in the same sentence.

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  93. Of COURSE it's anti-MS FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Slashdot can't put out anti-Microsoft FUD fast enough... that's what this entire website was MADE for!

    Win7 isn't even out yet, and already the FUDsters are going full-bore at the "ZOMG TEH WINDOZE 7 IS TEH FAILURE!!!11!! WinXP WUZ TEH BEST OS EVAR!!!11!!!11"

    I still find it ironic how the exact same people who were here, on Slashdot, bashing Windows XP for years upon years, are now loudly proclaiming it to have been the gilded age of modern computing.

  94. KDAWSON: IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time to get rid of this incessant fudspreader and replace him with an African American moderator.

    What say you, good men and women of /.?

  95. Re:so? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

    You call that rough, my family had it so harsh that we once had to eat part of my leg for food. The natives call me, walks with limp.

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  96. The article is worthless by Herby+Sagues · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you really think that counting threads and memory footprint will give you any sort of indication of a systems performance? So, whatever those threads are really doing is not useful information? By design Windows uses as much memory is available, as unused memory is of no value. A performance indication would be to measure how much actual pagin is there when physical memory is exhausted by running process. Counting used memory is worthless. And counting threads and processes? Come on! What sort of analysis is this? Even if it were based on the final product (instead of a pre beta version), this analysis doesn't tell absolutely nothing. Not that I would expect that Win7 uses fewer resources that Vista. It would be a great thing if, coming a few years later, it used the same level of resources (meaning it should be able to run in machines over five years old) but expecting it to consume fewer resources is delusional. Performance today has much less to do with resource usage than with responsiveness and proactivity anyway.

    1. Re:The article is worthless by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you really think that counting threads and memory footprint will give you any sort of indication of a systems performance? So, whatever those threads are really doing is not useful information?

      By design Windows uses as much memory is available, as unused memory is of no value.

      Unused memory is quite valuable. For instance, on a server where it needs to be able to quickly allocate memory to process a given request. Using all available memory would thus require paging stuff out to free memory for (for instance) a web server process to finish a script or similar request.

      Very inefficient.

      A performance indication would be to measure how much actual pagin is there when physical memory is exhausted by running process. Counting used memory is worthless. And counting threads and processes? Come on! What sort of analysis is this? Even if it were based on the final product (instead of a pre beta version), this analysis doesn't tell absolutely nothing.

      Actually, counting threads, based off numerous more "techie types" knowledge of how Windows handles thread and process management, is a quite valid approach. Overloading a system with one of the worst thread schedulers on the PC is definitely not an approach that leads to performance benefits. Nor is assuming that everyone will have the latest and greatest hardware to make up for such a poor implementation - especially since MS continuously hypes their "latest and greatest" OS as something everyone should upgrade to. Anyone remember the Vista Upgrade Advisor - and how what it thought was a Vista Capable machine oft times was not? So... following a similar scenario, the use of tons of threads as the norm, on an OS that MS expects the world to upgrade to, is a design/implementation flaw that will just cause angst to all the poor unsuspecting end users who upgrade their XP machines finally to W7.

      Not that I would expect that Win7 uses fewer resources that Vista. It would be a great thing if, coming a few years later, it used the same level of resources (meaning it should be able to run in machines over five years old) but expecting it to consume fewer resources is delusional.

      Why? Because it is Microsoft? Or is there a technical reason? Keep in mind the far greater resources that Vista needed over XP or their server line (2003 and earlier) did not translate into any meaningful benefits for the end user. There was no reason for the increased bloat and resource usage at such a level. Vista should have required more resources - but not nearly as much more as the final product did.

      Thus, if Microsoft were to actually get this one right, it should use less resources than Vista. More than XP? Yes. But still less than Vista.

      Of course, that is unlikely to be the case, as is evidenced by their latest attempts to make the OS appear to be faster instead of actually making it faster (ie: tweaks to the UI to give the appearance of a snappier response, while all the "real work" still takes the same amount of time or more).

      Performance today has much less to do with resource usage than with responsiveness and proactivity anyway.

      Again, I beg to differ... but then again, I like running numerous things at a time... and knowing I have available memory (without having the need to wait for stuff to be paged out) when I am running things. Everything you argue for makes no sense - except in the respect that Windows needs as much as possible to perform as "adequately" as possible.

    2. Re:The article is worthless by elysiuan · · Score: 1

      Unused memory is quite valuable. For instance, on a server where it needs to be able to quickly allocate memory to process a given request. Using all available memory would thus require paging stuff out to free memory for (for instance) a web server process to finish a script or similar request.

      Very inefficient.

      You realize Linux does the exact same thing? Ever wonder what that 'cache' entry in top was trying to tell you?

      Linux constantly loads things into memory on the off chance you're going to want to run foowidget then it won't have to load it off the disk.

      When a running process has a need for more memory linux just dumps this cache and gives it to the process. No disk hit.

      This 'using all the memory' approach lets you get some benefit from those gigs of ram that would otherwise be doing nothing. As to it's efficiency, well linux has been known to run a server or two before.

      As an endnote, Vista has the same thing they call 'superfetch' and I imagine that this is what is being talked about in Windows 7

    3. Re:The article is worthless by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe you will find their methods quite different. Though Windows does use SuperFetch for such things, even with it disabled, you will be surprised what Windows' memory footprint is (ie: use all the memory).

      Yes, comparing Superfetch to such technologies under other OS's would be valid... but again, even with it disabled, it is sad/scary just how much RAM Windows Vista and above will still utilize.

      I think you and I are discussing two different issues.

  97. It may be a point release technically... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    Identical thread counts at the kernel level suggest to Kennedy that Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite.'
    .

    It may be a mere minor point release technically, but marketing-wise it is going to be a double jump in major version numbers.

    Better computing through marketing.

    1. Re:It may be a point release technically... by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I think that's all we can expect from Microsoft at this point. They're too scared to make any major changes to the OS, given Vista's terrible reception.

      --
      Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
  98. "Little" improvement? by devjj · · Score: 1

    The article says "zero measurable performance benefits". "[L]ittle" implies there's some improvement somewhere. Microsoft may be doing a great job drumming up the buzz about Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to help them. Anyone who's actually paying attention to the details knows that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a fresh coat of paint.

  99. Vista performance, or lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I'm the first to get on Microsoft about a poor product. I think the one thing they need to put in Windows 7 is a way to kill all the processes that run in the background. Something like a performance mode, that shuts down things like sidebar, media center, and indexing. I went through all of my vista services. After my inital install I was using 42% of memory. After I turned off or disabled a bunch of not needed services, i got it down to 26%. It works pretty good now. But what ends up happening is that all the "art" gets turned off. I could care less. I want performance, not pretty. If I wanted pretty, I'd use a Mac and get nothing done.

  100. Re:so? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have you tried contacting those who make Photoshop and your other apps aware of the fact?

    I would say that Photoshop is a great application which is only missing support for other platforms...

  101. Fair comparisons by bensal · · Score: 1
    Why does everyone compare the performance of a pre-beta version of Windows against Vista or even XP.

    Let us not forget that XP was released in 2001! I certainly remember the same internet echo chamber of whining when XP came out that it was so slow compared to Windows 98 and shared all the same hardware issues and everyone is complaining about now with Vista.
    Windows 7 will not be released for two - three years, I think the average slashdot user will have upgraded their computer a number of times before the release.

    I agree with all of you that it was a poor marketing strategy for Microsoft to release a slower version of Windows but I find it hard to compare a brand new somewhat future proof (in hindsight, windows 7 is being rushed along to replace vista) operating system with an operating system that has had the luxury of being tested over and over again with thousands of driver updates over the past seven years! If Vista is too slow, upgrade your hardware and wait a year or two. In seven years, half of you will be whining about how Windows 8 is way too slow compared to your great seasoned Windows 7 runs. Step up with new hardware or quit whining and keep using XP.

  102. Re:so? by heelrod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nobody cares about Australia, especially since men @ werk quit playin on the radio

  103. Re:so? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    And our numeral system didn't even have a 0. Damn you youngins and your fancy numbers.

    And if I had a ducat every time I'm reminded of that, I'd have at least MMXLIV.

  104. Force 64 bit ! by Aliencow · · Score: 1

    Is Microsoft Finally going to DITCH the 32bit version of Windows?

    Just to force everyone to make drivers for 64bit, so we can FINALLY have machines with enough RAM to run Windows itself?

  105. Excellent detective work! by malevolentjelly · · Score: 1

    Now, let's just benchmark this against Ubuntu 9.04 and Haiku OS- then we'll really know which direction this is taking.

    It's really funny how they're complaining about how the alpha release is about the same speed as vista. Do you remember what the Vista alpha/betas were like?--

    This release is for getting feedback on new features and giving developers a chance to start working with the new API's, specifically some of the "dock" and device related ones that will need work before the release. It has not been performance optimized yet!

    I know that in opensource development, one of the beta versions is simply tagged the release, in that it's loosely bug tested, called an RC, then eventually called a Release- but in the grown-up software world, quite a bit of performance enhancement and optimizations go into the last legs of development.

    This has not occurred yet. You do not have a released version.

  106. Re:so? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

    Meh, I've got a PS3, I still do the vast majority of gaming on a PC.

    Consoles have far smaller catalogs, the games are more expensive, they're generally shallower, they look worse, they have poorer controls, and many of the titles worth having are also available on the PC. Certain classes of game are practically non-existant since they don't fit the console demographics or control systems or hardware limitations.

    There's little to no freeware, no modding, and no publishing freedom since everything has to be vetted by one vendor. That's all a pretty hefty price for a marginally higher probability of things Just Working.

  107. And in other news... by torry_loon · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu 9.04 shows little improvement on 8.10. In the current state of the development, Windows 7 is Vista!

  108. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are using linux for a dissertation why on earth are you using a word processor? Spend those few hours you spent learning Office 2003 and learn TeX (LaTeX). This would be the preferred method for writing professional papers.

  109. Re:so? by bonch · · Score: 1

    The difference is that the console doesn't require you to upgrade your hardware to run the damn game. You buy a console for a few hundred, and you're set for the next five years for any game you buy for it.

    PC hardware requirements, coupled with rampant piracy, have killed gaming on that platform. It's a dead horse.

  110. Re:so? by bonch · · Score: 1

    I, on the other hand, can't even get Ubuntu to display X on my Dell Dimension 2400 with an Intel video card. Meanwhile, everything from classic XP to Vista x64 run perfectly fine on that hardware.

  111. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux supports gaming. Only the games hardly "support Linux".

    When Linux has an API as robust and useful as DirectX, then you can make that claim. Until then, those are fanboi dreams, which you are not able to prove.

  112. Re:What the fuck did you expect!? by noundi · · Score: 1

    Yeah you can mod it troll, but did you hear about someone who's actually SATISFIED with vista? No? That's what I thought.

    --
    I am the lawn!
  113. Hippies... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    You're talking a guy who watches Mythbusters to ogle at the lovely sexy Kari with her red hair and vegetarianism.

    And I listen to the Skeptics' guide to the Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org) to hear the voice of the sexy veggie hippie chick Rebecca.

    What OS do you think I'm going to prefer? ;)

    1. Re:Hippies... by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Mmm, redhead hippie girls ;-D Here, have a Charlie Dimmock!

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  114. Re:so? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Skis? You were lucky!

    We had to get up at seven o' clock the evening before to make our own skis out of wet cardboard while fighting of velociraptors with out hands tied behind our backs. Then we had to ski cross-country across snowy peaks and desert valleys to work more hours than our number system could even represent! And that's just before the lunch we didn't even get to eat.

  115. Benchmarks, shmenchmarks by Woadan · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't give too much weight to this article. First, this is by far a pre-release TEST version of a product that will undoubtedly go through many changes before the final release. But more importantly, unless your machine pretty closely matches the configuration he tested on, your results will perforce vary. (Which may mean your results could be better or worse.)

    As James Kendrick over at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/04/the-shortcoming.html) has said, "The reality is that there are too many factors in play on modern systems for raw power benchmarks to give an accurate indication of how well a given system can perform them. Today's complicated systems are affected by many factors, CPU power, hard disk speed, memory and HDD caches, graphics subsystems, total installed memory, operating system version, and internal components which all play a role in how well a system performs overall. Individual benchmarks don't reflect this in my opinion and this is why I don't publish them."

    Kevin C. Tofel, also at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/10/windows-7-on-a.html), had this to say about his installation of the pre-release on his MSI Wind: "Like LAPTOP Magazine, I like what I see so far."

    Benchmarks won't tell you much (at least that is useful). But real-world, hands-on usage such as what Kevin and James often report on at JKontherun are.

    Woadan

    --
    You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
  116. New and Improved - Windows 7 - Not by AnnonUSA · · Score: 1

    Did anyone actually think that Windows 7 was going to be any more than Vista SP2? Please. When you can't sell something, refresh the packaging and sell it again. The funny part is, even though it will be the same as Vista, there will be lots of people willing to say it's better than Vista...

  117. MinWin by heffrey · · Score: 1

    I enjoyed Kennedy's reference to the "mythical MinWin". It's clueless fools like him that are perpetuating this myth. MinWin exists today, it just isn't what the overwhelming majority of journos think and say it is.

    Mark Russinovish explains what MinWin really is on Channel 9: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/. The relevant section starts 29 minutes in.

  118. Re:so? by agrounds · · Score: 1

    PC hardware requirements, coupled with rampant piracy, have killed gaming on that platform. It's a dead horse.

    World Of Warcraft

    I think that is just about all I need to say there.

  119. Re:so? by bonch · · Score: 1

    One PC game is supposed to prove me wrong? Have you compared sales of PC games to console games in the last few years? It's well-known that PC gaming is a dead market.

  120. Re:so? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    Ignorant bullshit. I've had my hardware for almost 6 years and I've been enjoying fallout 3 without a single problem.

  121. Re:so? by srmalloy · · Score: 1

    ...and when you got home each night, your dad would kill you and dance about on your grave singing "Hallelujah!"...

  122. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My employer is in the "testing" phase still with a message on the IT website saying "Vista coming soon". Unlike the MS Office 2007 rollout, Vista has no scheduled dates for rollout to the various business units. I don't see Vista coming to a desktop near me for a long time. Given some of the hardware for the general office type workers, I don't think the systems would even perform well enough to handle the rollout of Vista. We're talking about a company with more than 50K employees internationally.

    Mij

  123. Re:so? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

    I have four PCs (three desktops, one laptop), one Wii, one XBox 36, and some older consoles (GC and PS2). Out of all the games in my house, we have more for the PC than we do all the consoles combined. This may not be typical of most households but I know my siblings are in a similar situation (one has a console system, the other two don't).

  124. Wow, improoovments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see a big difference between Vista and "7" besides the desktop appearance.

  125. Re:so? by tyrione · · Score: 1

    You're correct. Anyone who pisses away their time on Word or Writer and not using stuff like Kile, LyX 1.6, TeXShop or other editors with LaTeX and XeTeX deserve to have their dissertations look like s***. I'm writing 2 novels in LaTeX and their is now way in hell I'd use Word or Writer to attempt it.

    I'm editing classics of literature as well with one over 5,000 pages. There is no way in hell I'm going to deal with the intricacies necessary for consistent formatting and not use LaTeX. If you think it takes much time to learn LaTeX than to muck with formatting issues with such large projects than you've never written anything over 20 pages in your entire life.

  126. Re:so? by beav007 · · Score: 1

    So I can attach a keyboard and mouse to a SNES, and it becomes a PC?

    A PC is a multi-purpose computing device. A gaming console with a keyboard and mouse is still a gaming console - at least until you install alternative software. It's not the keyboard and mouse that makes it a PC, it's the functionality.

  127. Re:so? by rob_benson · · Score: 1

    Points:
    1) Hardcore gaming is not a concern of the majority of Windows users (and XP outperforms Vista there anyway). Linux has plenty of games (and at least in Ubuntu they are MUCH easier to install and do not have confusing and arbitrary DRM restrictions) for "casual" gamers, which the majority of Windows users are. The hardcore folks I will admit need Windows.
    2) In Ubuntu I don't download drivers, It configures that for me automatically in 90% of the systems I installed it in (well over 50 systems - admittedly that last 10% really sucked).
    3) I run MS Office and Outlook using Crossover. I really don't need to since I have never had problems using Open Office. We use Exchange 2007 sooo. I have to run Outlook + I actually like MS Office.
    4) Ummm I think you better fact check. In business Linux is highly respected. Almost everyone and their mother is MS certified. I am as well, But I can also support Linux. This makes my skill set more desirable than a MS only admin: I can provide a much wider solution set to projects that may require interoperability or have small budgets with large requirements. Linux is good for business - and it is installed on appprox. 1 in 4 new servers. LINK: http://news.cnet.com/IDC-Linux-server-sales-to-hit-9.1-billion-in-2008/2100-1010_3-5479681.html
    I think Linux will continue make inroads as long as Microsoft continues down the road of "bigger is better" and continues to annoy users with registration nightmares and empty marketing ploys. Business-wise, the Server 2008 platform has some great features,and certainly is very competitive but their home market will continue to lose ground to OSX and Ubuntu if they don't start improving the average user's experience.

  128. Simply Put by His+Shadow · · Score: 1

    Anyone who actually believes Windows 7 isn't just Vista SP3 is just not very bright.

    --

    Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

  129. Re:so? by rastilin · · Score: 1

    But it's important to specify. The bodies aren't hers and the psycho rage is less destructive than the linux girlfriend.

    Really it doesn't mean much but I have 518 hour uptime on this machine alone. On Windows Vista, it's fine almost all the time for almost all computers. You only hear about the corner cases of the horror of windows. With linux, don't we just sort of ignore all those faults?

    --
    How do you kill that which has no life?
  130. Re:so? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Informative

    OOo3 Writer just does not have the same feature set as even Word 2003

    Just don't take your dissertation somewhere to have it printed and expect it to come out looking like it does on your computer.

    When I worked at a small print shop/service bureau, we had a what we called "The Word Disclaimer" form that stated we could not guarantee the quality of any output from a Word file. It was created after many problems with clients who were irate when the Word documents we printed for them didn't look the way they expected them to look. Anyone submitting a MS Word document to us had to sign a copy before we would agree to print it up.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  131. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

    Photoshop's OK you know... Codeweavers have done a decent job of doing Adobe's hard work for them.

    It's mainly the stuff that relies on quirky and new hardware or niche custom applications that cause the real problems for Linux.

  132. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

    Hehe, I respectfully disagree...

    I play PS3 and 360, I think probably about 20 hours in the last month.

    I have spent the rest of my gaming time playing CoD:WAW beta, Far Cry 2, the new Cobra 11 demo and GRID... all of them are a lot prettier on PC, I can swap happily between keyboard, mouse and 360 pad as required, and get the bonus of Teamspeak with my clan.

    Consoles are OK, but I only have them for "console exclusive" titles. They'll never take my PC! ;)

  133. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

    Steam et al are the future.

    Quality indie games are helping.

    PC is not going anywhere. Even if just for the fact for every hard core gamer there's a hundred office-bound Flash game players, flitting between Bejewelled and Facebook.

  134. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

    I suspect MS will make it compare.

    XP cannot use DX10 and DX11's interfaces, so the publishers will be pressed to make the games require these interfaces, or at least look a lot worse without.

    I think we all know by now most of Crysis' DX10 features were actually possible in the DX9 pipeline, some can even be hacked on easily.

    The same will happen... XP will be retired by forcing it to become obselete.

  135. Re:so? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

    Yes, you seem to have hit the nail on the head, that a current gen AMD/ATI card which I will be replacing in the new year is currently "being worked on".

    This is the real problem, by the time good drivers come out, it will be verging on obselete in terms of high-end gaming.

    If I wanted crappy graphics, I would go back to my 360 / PS3.

    On a more positive note though, Deus Ex 2 is a right romp! I just replayed Deus Ex 2, Half Life and both Max Payne games recently, as I was abroad with only a laptop to play on.

    Hope you enjoy DE2! :-)

  136. Duh! Big surprise! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Microsoft doesn't sell software - it sells lies.

    Windows 7 might be marginally better than Vista by the time it's released - over a year from now - but that merely means Microsoft has made everybody wait another three years to upgrade XP.

    Microsoft still ends up selling you morons crap because, quite frankly, most of you WANT to bend over for Bill Gates because he's rich and you're not. It's simple alpha-beta chimpanzee behavior.

    I reiterate what I've said for years now:

    Windows is CRAP.

    Linux is ALSO CRAP.

    BUT Linux is FREE CRAP.

    Seriously, the IT industry needs to start moving away from the Microsoft environment because the company has demonstrated repeatly that it cannot produce a decent product for a decent price. The corporations need to understand that making Bill Gates the richest guy in the world is not an effective use of their capital - especially in the middle of the worst recession since 1981, which still threatens to turn into "Depression 2.0".

    None of the objections to doing so - training expense, lack of applications, blah, blah - are relevant over the long run. Everything was engineered to work with Windows over two decades - it can be re-engineered to work with open source standards similarly. Bite the bullet and do it. As Dick Marcinko used to tell his RED CELL SEAL Team, "You don't have to like it. You just have to do it."

    If you don't, you'll keep paying through the nose to Bill Gates both direct costs and productivity loss for the rest of your corporate life.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Duh! Big surprise! by bratwiz · · Score: 1

      Serious question-- no prevarication or trolling--

      WHY do you think Linux is crap? What specific things make it crap-ish to you???

    2. Re:Duh! Big surprise! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Oh, just the general problems you have with any OS. For instance, KWin crashes periodically on my openSUSE 10.3, usually after heavy Firefox use, so I usually blame Firefox for it. Also, it seems for some reason every time I update the system lately, the permissions on the zypp-checkupdates-wrapper get changed for no known reason and the updater applet can't check for updates until I reset the permissions. Little crap like that.

      My basic point is that all software is crap. Some is worse than others. Windows is worse than Linux, but Linux still has serious problems in usability, distro QA, etc. It's just a fact that the software industry is lucky it can get anything to work at all. To call this stuff "software engineering" is to insult REAL engineers. It's all "seat of the pants" design and testing. Unless it's for a nuclear plant or the space shuttle or something else that somebody is putting real money into testing, the stuff simply isn't reliable, maintainable, secure, efficient, and easy to use compared to what it could be.

      It's all just "good enough" - which in most cases means "not quite good enough."

      At least Linux is evolving quickly - or at least the infrastructure is, not so much the kernel any more. Windows 7 is just going to be Windows Vista with some bandaids.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  137. Re:so? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    SDL, OpenGL, etc

    OpenGL under Linux performs better than either directx OR OpenGL under windows.

  138. Re:so? by tknd · · Score: 1

    Why should they cater to 4% of the total market share especially when a large portion of that 4% believes that software should be open and not proprietary/closed?

  139. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You only hear about the corner cases of the horror of windows.

    Well, that's the price Microsoft pays for being so successful. For one thing, they're held to a higher standard - if you're going to charge money for an operating system hold ninety percent of the home operating system market, your product better damn well be lightyears ahead of a free operating system written in someone's spare time. For another thing, saying positive things about Microsoft is like pissing in an ocean - most people are not aware they have a choice regarding their current PC, so why bother trying to sell them something they think they're locked in to? Also, who's ignoring problems on linux systems? Everyone I know complains on forums/IRC first sign of a bug - but I've never seen anyone actually bother to file those error-report generators on Windows (clicking all of two buttons).

    For the record, 518 hours of uptime is not hugely impressive - I just shut down a linux PC that had a ~7,920 hour uptime (hardware upgrading and de-dusting).

  140. Re:so? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    Knuth, is that you?

  141. Re:so? by Atti+K. · · Score: 1

    And before you go off into a rant - 4% is not acceptance, it's a margin of error.

    What % was the acceptance of Linux in the business again?

    --
    .sig: No such file or directory
  142. Re:I see a lot of this. by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

    It's funny to see the current M$ party line as, "incompetent IT people are going to install Vista so get used to it."

    Apparently, according to twitter, a random slashdotter making a statement makes it "M$ party line". We're not sure what relationship this random Slashdotter's opinion has to Microsoft advertising strategy, but they're linkable because everybody on Slashdot is a Microsoft shill except twitter, who is the lone voice of truth and decency in a sea of lies and slander.

    This would be funny, except you actually sound exactly that ridiculous, so instead it's a bit pathetic.

    --
    "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  143. Re:so? by bonch · · Score: 1

    PC game sales are down...I don't know what else to tell you. They've been down for years, while console game sales are exploding.

  144. Re:so? by Meski · · Score: 1

    If a pre-beta delivers close to comparable results to a release product, the release product will be significantly faster. You all knew that though. The journalist evidently doesn't.

  145. Re:so? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    While your point is fair were I arguing for Linux acceptance: Linux's acceptance by business is not relevant here.

    That 4% represents a rejection of Vista (and unless MS improves it dramatically, Windows 7) in favor of Windows XP not Linux.

    And that rejection is far more significant to Microsoft than Linux will ever be, mainly because Windows acceptance is solely based on business perception that Microsoft is the market leader. Unfortunately, for Microsoft in comparison to Linux, it is a business and its long term security depends on the acceptance of Vista and subsequently Windows 7 - without it they are in serious trouble.

    The original "Halloween Memo" recognized Linux as a threat to this security - but I would guess that if there is a "Halloween 2008 Memo", the letters 'XP' appear far more than the word 'Linux'.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  146. vista NOT that bad retards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I have been using Vista x64 since the RTM, at first the performance was kind of slow compared to xp, but after some patches I see no differance, benchmarks are the same give or take 10-15 points. And the only issue I haven't been able to fix by just using google is the network problem when using audio. For those people who bitch about vista I have 2 peices of advice for you, Throw away your 10 year old pc. Use google when you come across a problem.

    Ok back on topic, Im using windows 7 on my laptop, and there is a few compatiablilty issues but its an ok OS, but as far as it being better than vista, for day to day average person use THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! I still use the same amount of ram, I actually use more CPU than before. You people that claim windows 7 is sooo great need to actually use it first, I think its a waste of time, if MS has actually given vista time, given it another SP or more patches the OS would be just fine.