Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Upgrade Can Take Nearly a Day
Eugen writes "A Microsoft Software Engineer has posted the results of tests the company performed on the upgrade time of Windows 7. The metric used was total upgrade time across different user profiles (with different data set sizes and number of programs installed) and different hardware profiles. A clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls 'high-end hardware' should take only 30 minutes. In the worst case scenario, the process will take about 1220 minutes. That second extreme is not a typo: Microsoft really did time an upgrade that took 20 hours and 20 minutes. That's with 650GB of data and 40 applications, on mid-end hardware, and during a 32-bit upgrade. We don't even want to know how long it would take if Microsoft had bothered doing the same test with low-end hardware. The other interesting point worth noting is that the 32-bit upgrade is faster on a clean install than a 64-bit upgrade, regardless of the hardware configuration, and is faster on low-end hardware, regardless of the Data Profile. In the other six cases, the 64-bit upgrade is faster than the 32-bit upgrade."
There's more drivers if you're willing to deal with voodoo. In Windows, the number of drivers is the same at all times and you don't need any voodoo hexes to get them installed. Just "double click the icon and your sound works now!"
It's been a long time.
Do you even know the difference between a compiled and an interpreted language?
Yes I do.
The reason your are fucking stupid is not that you don't know the difference between compilers and interpreters, its that you dont know the facts. Someone at some point apparently told you that these languages were interpreted, and instead of finding out for yourself if it was true, you believed them just like a Christian believes in God. Your language religion had made you stupid.
"His name was James Damore."
As someone who has been writing code for decades, I know the difference between compilers and interpreters.
Firstly, I have you beat in # of years programming. Secondly, you apparently don't because...
VB, C#, etc., are interpreted, and require the presence of a runtime.
I didn't realize that 'runtime' = 'interpreter' .. A runtime could be, as in the case of .NET, a compiler. Thats right, a run time compiler. The technology is called JIT and .NET isnt the first. Apparently you didn't know that this was possible, which is hard to believe since you have several decades of programming experience... oh wait, you probably don't... you must have lied.
If it has to be interpreted, it's not compiled
What do you think compilers do, exactly? The fact of the matter is that a compiler translates source code into machine code... just like the .NET framework.
"His name was James Damore."
Run-time compilation is what interpreters do
You sir, are a moron.
The difference between a compiler and an interpreter is that during parsing one emits machine code that can add A and B, while the other branches to existing code that adds A and B.
Thats it. Thats the basics of it. You cannot weasel your way out of your own stupid ignorance. I'm glad that you now internally know that VB.NET and C# are compilers, even if you wont admit it publicly due to not wanting to admit how fucking stupidly ignorant you were while making obviously wrong authoritative statements.
"His name was James Damore."