Slashdot Mirror


Which OS Performs Best With SSDs?

Lucas123 writes "Linux, Vista and Mac OS perform differently with solid state disks. While all of them work well with SSDs, as they write data more efficiently or run fewer applications in the background than XP, surprisingly Windows 2000 appears to be the winner when it comes to performance. However, no OS has yet been optimized to work with SSDs. This lost opportunity is one Microsoft plans to address with Windows 7; Apple, too, is likely to upgrade its platform soon for better SSD performance."

11 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Linux, as a matter of fact by Jonah+Bomber · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geniuses often don't play well with others.

  2. Re:Awful article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This article is 34% more shitty than the average /. article.

  3. ReiserFS is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    for when you need to partition your wife

    1. Re:ReiserFS is good by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1, Funny

      You better keep her around..

      You never know when you need a good FSCK.

      --
  4. Re:Article is bullshit by icydog · · Score: 3, Funny

    What? Don't you know that Microsoft invented multitasking with Windows XP? Linux and Windows 2000 are incapable of running background processes.

  5. It's called dark humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stop posting on Slashdot and go back to jail, Hans.

  6. Re:Nevers run anything in the background? You what by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's because Mac users are non technical and open their files by name rather than cluster number. If you do that then defragmenting doesn't break anything.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  7. Re:Linux, as a matter of fact by GerardAtJob · · Score: 2, Funny

    nope you're a coward :P

    --
    I can't call that English ;-)
  8. Re:Linux, as a matter of fact by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, come on now! *throws chair* Stop ruining my minions^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hteam's astroturfing with your 'facts' and 'logic'! *throws another chair* I'm gonna fscking KILL that Anonymous Coward guy!!

    -- Steve B.

  9. Re:Windows 2000 is fastest of Windows and Mac OSX by setagllib · · Score: 4, Funny

    I run a RAIV-5 array, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  10. Re:Nevers run anything in the background? You what by deek · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must have missed the change. It was a major feature for the Linux 2.6 kernel series. All linux processes now run in the foreground. Running a process in the foreground saves on overhead, thus resulting in a significant improvement in speed. Easily more than the 1-2% that the article mentions. I suspect the article downplayed the speed advantage, to cast Windows in a better light.

    Linux achieves this ability by forking the process from the shell, and redirecting the inputs and outputs away, thus giving the illusion of a backgrounded process. The beauty of this is that it's all completely transparent to the end user. The system behaves just as before, apart from the speed increase.

    Everyone knows that processes in the foreground run faster. Myself, I used to background a process only out of absolute necessity. These days though, a background process is actually a foreground process, so I don't worry at all about running multiple jobs at the one shell now. Linux is truly a state of the art operating system!