mod up. can anyone cite any thorough benchmarking or study that compares win7rc and win xpsp3 and says that xp is significantly and convincingly faster than win7. i can cite one that says the opposite.
what i found out after my research is that xp is way faster than vista or 7 if you have 2gb (bare minimum these days), vista and win7 are much faster. i wonder how that can happen.
i was really surprised to see that games had slightly higher fps on win7 than windows. i mean i had been avoiding vista only due to poor gaming performance.
and if you would really run xp and then win7 on a modern system (>2gb ram, >2.2ghz dual core), you would realize that there is a very significant improvement to boot times and app launch times. i found that even newer games are much faster on 7 than xp.
and even when benchmarks done by some other people actually show win7 and xp neck to neck and win7 better for games. people need to understand that benchmarking results should be subjective.
you think the us military would sell every new plane they have? no, they keep with themselves planes and technology at least two generations ahead of anything they admit to possess.
ubuntu has come a long way in the past two years. i agree. but don't compare networking on ubuntu to networking on winxp, vista or win7. the simplest options are just not there in ubuntu. suppose i switch off wifi using the physical switch on my laptop and switch it back on, with windows i just need to click on the crossed out network icon and click rescan. in ubuntu, i usually need to reboot, or if lucky, restart x. this is the only thing that ubuntu does not do better and it does it so freaking bad, i advise everyone who asks me about ubuntu to stay away if they use a laptop and wifi.
yes 9.04 is better than 8.10 but when you compare 9.04 to 9.04 netbook remix, the remix feels kinda sluggish. i don't know. maybe i keep imagining slowdowns because the img for netbook was larger than the iso for main.
netbook remix is very nice, but why did they have to make it heavier on resources than the full version? i mean if it will run on netbooks, it should be trimmed down not bloated. nevertheless the ui is incredible. i use it on my old lappy, which is only a netbook by today's standards.
I tried one of the win7 betas but gave up quickly because I could find no working network driver for my onboard NIC. I installed the new RC on Thursday and the OS is an absolute dream.
the most interesting thing is that if from today everyone using msoffice starts saving all documents as odf, the original odf implemented by oo and others just becomes defunct. the new "ms odf" becomes the de-facto standard, just because 99% people are using it. evil, as microsoft is, is usually genius too.
the problem only occurs in spreadsheets which use formulas. all othe documents are good. so its rather wrong to say that msoffice has got 0% interoperability.
Self-replying, I know, but I just thought of something else.
According to TFS, Office fails to load ODF files created by any other application. If those files are compliant with ODF standards, the blame for this lies squarely on Microsoft. They fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Conversely, if the files produced by MS Office are valid standards-compliant ODF files (which they may be according to the letter of the standard) we should also blame the other apps if they fail to use them, isn't so? They will also fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
which, curiously leads us to...the spec is broken.
the best response from open office would be to completely drop all support for ms formats (doc, xls, etc). allow the user to read and write only odf. that would show ms that others ca also do what they've been doing for a decade.
its not ms's problem if the spec itself is broken. what would you have preferred, that office refuse to store formulas in odf spreadsheets or that it tries to implement it in some way?
i left out from my reply. yes youtube was losing money even then, but not at this rate. but since every new venture needs time to turn in a profit, it was not considered to be a fundamental problem in youtube's model.
google knew about losses. they bought it expecting it to give them a big profit in future. youtube hid nothing from google. also, storage is not as big an issue (for google) as transcoding all the videos and delivering them to everyone fast enough to be streamed.
I feel that even if they offer premium content, it's always going to be seen as more expensive than before, or indeed more expensive than simply torrenting it.
Once you run a free model, and later try to add on subscription services, it never works out. You have to do both from the outset, or not at all. Trying to crowbar it in now will just turn users to other sites.
because, like everything google do, they thought that after everyone would regularly use youtube, they could show ads or something to become profitable. like gmail. what revenue does google get from gmail except ads? but youtube is so costly to run that ads can't cover all the expenses.
I still believe that Windows 7 should be a free upgrade to Windows Vista buyers...It's been a very short run for Vista and with people having forked out for Vista I think that Microsoft may have a difficult time charging again for Windows 7.
the thing that makes me go back to kde again and again are the apps. i mean is there any damn player better than amarok? but then there is a very glaring void: firefox. it is a mad bitch on kde. the thing looks fugly and hangs up as regularly as you click on links. does someone know of a good kde browser. except konqeror. that is even worse than ff on kde. its like safari. eww!
Slashdot Mirror
mod up.
can anyone cite any thorough benchmarking or study that compares win7rc and win xpsp3 and says that xp is significantly and convincingly faster than win7. i can cite one that says the opposite.
I think the TFA misses the REAL issue, which is: 1.check the improvement between Win7 and Vista; 2.check both against Windows XP.
look at this. it actually says that win7 is faster than xp.
what i found out after my research is that xp is way faster than vista or 7 if you have 2gb (bare minimum these days), vista and win7 are much faster. i wonder how that can happen.
i was really surprised to see that games had slightly higher fps on win7 than windows. i mean i had been avoiding vista only due to poor gaming performance.
and if you would really run xp and then win7 on a modern system (>2gb ram, >2.2ghz dual core), you would realize that there is a very significant improvement to boot times and app launch times. i found that even newer games are much faster on 7 than xp.
and even when benchmarks done by some other people actually show win7 and xp neck to neck and win7 better for games. people need to understand that benchmarking results should be subjective.
you think the us military would sell every new plane they have? no, they keep with themselves planes and technology at least two generations ahead of anything they admit to possess.
man, what's with all the crap about osx on dell mini? if you wanna use osx use it the way its meant to be used: on a macbook pro.
ubuntu has come a long way in the past two years. i agree. but don't compare networking on ubuntu to networking on winxp, vista or win7. the simplest options are just not there in ubuntu. suppose i switch off wifi using the physical switch on my laptop and switch it back on, with windows i just need to click on the crossed out network icon and click rescan. in ubuntu, i usually need to reboot, or if lucky, restart x. this is the only thing that ubuntu does not do better and it does it so freaking bad, i advise everyone who asks me about ubuntu to stay away if they use a laptop and wifi.
yes 9.04 is better than 8.10 but when you compare 9.04 to 9.04 netbook remix, the remix feels kinda sluggish. i don't know. maybe i keep imagining slowdowns because the img for netbook was larger than the iso for main.
netbook remix is very nice, but why did they have to make it heavier on resources than the full version? i mean if it will run on netbooks, it should be trimmed down not bloated.
nevertheless the ui is incredible. i use it on my old lappy, which is only a netbook by today's standards.
I tried one of the win7 betas but gave up quickly because I could find no working network driver for my onboard NIC. I installed the new RC on Thursday and the OS is an absolute dream.
you must be dreaming.
i would think that any thing creating more ozone would be good for the environment.
you can do that?
the most interesting thing is that if from today everyone using msoffice starts saving all documents as odf, the original odf implemented by oo and others just becomes defunct. the new "ms odf" becomes the de-facto standard, just because 99% people are using it.
evil, as microsoft is, is usually genius too.
especially when every other damn document which is not a spreadsheet with formulas will be read and written with perfect interoperability.
the problem only occurs in spreadsheets which use formulas. all othe documents are good. so its rather wrong to say that msoffice has got 0% interoperability.
Self-replying, I know, but I just thought of something else.
According to TFS, Office fails to load ODF files created by any other application. If those files are compliant with ODF standards, the blame for this lies squarely on Microsoft. They fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Conversely, if the files produced by MS Office are valid standards-compliant ODF files (which they may be according to the letter of the standard) we should also blame the other apps if they fail to use them, isn't so? They will also fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
which, curiously leads us to...the spec is broken.
the best response from open office would be to completely drop all support for ms formats (doc, xls, etc). allow the user to read and write only odf. that would show ms that others ca also do what they've been doing for a decade.
its not ms's problem if the spec itself is broken. what would you have preferred, that office refuse to store formulas in odf spreadsheets or that it tries to implement it in some way?
i left out from my reply.
yes youtube was losing money even then, but not at this rate. but since every new venture needs time to turn in a profit, it was not considered to be a fundamental problem in youtube's model.
I feel that even if they offer premium content, it's always going to be seen as more expensive than before, or indeed more expensive than simply torrenting it. Once you run a free model, and later try to add on subscription services, it never works out. You have to do both from the outset, or not at all. Trying to crowbar it in now will just turn users to other sites.
i couldn't agree more.
because, like everything google do, they thought that after everyone would regularly use youtube, they could show ads or something to become profitable. like gmail. what revenue does google get from gmail except ads? but youtube is so costly to run that ads can't cover all the expenses.
I still believe that Windows 7 should be a free upgrade to Windows Vista buyers...It's been a very short run for Vista and with people having forked out for Vista I think that Microsoft may have a difficult time charging again for Windows 7.
3 years is not short.
the thing that makes me go back to kde again and again are the apps. i mean is there any damn player better than amarok? but then there is a very glaring void: firefox. it is a mad bitch on kde. the thing looks fugly and hangs up as regularly as you click on links. does someone know of a good kde browser. except konqeror. that is even worse than ff on kde. its like safari. eww!