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.'"
not only is it a dupe, but the original article is still on the front page. Way to go.
"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.
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
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.
"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
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.
*cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*
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
So we're skipping this one as well?
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?
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.
Maybe they've decided to finally release that Windows Mojave I've heard so many good things about!
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();
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!
I read rumors about a minimal kernel to be used in the next Windows version. Will 7 skip it?
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.
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! :)
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
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.
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)
"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.
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.
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
"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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
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.
Shouldn't you use LaTeX for writing your dissertation anyway?
Word always gave up on me on large documents with a lot of content.
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.
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.
Rethinking email
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
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.
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.
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.).
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. ... most brands of routers run Linux.
Just take DSL routers : there's currently one in almost each house here around. Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
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 ]
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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...
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.