"xplatform" and "better engineered" are orthogonal attributes.
Maybe in your mind. As a developer and speaking on behalf of every good developer I know, that's simply not true. Crossplatform requires a good design. The more complex the application, the stronger the design has to be. Crossplatform usually means more code, which is working against cache/disk and memory. That translates into slower everything, all things being equal. That means a native advantage, aka, a bias. Try something like Opera which is, in spite of being cross platform, heaivly optimized for Windows. It's much faster than Mozilla or even the smaller footprint brethren.
Platform depenent IE4 was better engineered _and_ better architected than the cross-platform Netscape (upto 4).
You can't honestly expect me to accept remarks about Netscape 4 and older with a straight face can you? LOL. That's water long under the bridge and has no place in current computing discussions.
they do care that it runs badly on their platform
I'm honestly not sure if that's an effort or a slip. Simple fact is, Mozilla is excellent software and runs well on all of it's platforms. If application startup is your sole measure, then I have to exit this conversation which I laugh. Mozilla has a completely different design than IE and even includes many different technologies. Grapht a VB script interface onto IE and load all that extra overhead, and then we'll start talking with a straight face.;) While we're at it, fix all of the IE bugs, make it compliant, and then make an effort to correctly implement the majority of the CSS specification, then we'll start to be on the same page.
xplatform is not a "benefit"
Those two are completely orthogonial to the topic at hand. Good design is of no "benefit" to the user, unless that user wants crossplatform capabilities. Period. Crappy design has nothing to do with satisfying user requirements. I've seen many very poorly designed applications which the user base were happy to use.
Also, since you hoisted xplatform as a feature/benefit of open source
AHh...no, I did not. I hoisted that the original statement was complete BS and the proof to support that position is that crossplatform is techinically harder and more complex. Thusly, to be done right, everything else being equal, requires better engineering. This is as true for closed source applications as it is for open source. I'm sorry, but you are confused.
That said, let me clarify that when I meant "engineered" I did not mean better _architected
Ah! Well, that's a completely different monkey!
NT kernel - damn good
I'd have to disagree with you on that one, but it's neither here or there.;) Basically, the user's "crafted" experience of the kernel is non-existent, save only when they see the BSOD.;) Aside from that, the kernel has been worked on and worked on, which really shouldn't be happening considering MS lied about it be a microkernel...oh wait, it's a micro-hybrid kernel...no wait, it's a fully OO-hybrid-micro kernel. In reality, it's a monolithic kernel which got a lot wrong from the start and has been seriously revised and sections completely reworked over the years. Np shame in that, it's just the facts. But, digress.;)
Biases? MS' only bias is that its apps work well on Windows. If Mac users can boo and hiss when someone gives them a non-Carbonized app, why can't Windows users crib when you hand them an app that's obviously not optimized for Windows?
Because only recently have any non-MS developers been able to even think about doing something like this. Worse, those that did, were shot in the foot by Microsoft purposely breaking their applications. That's why. The parallel doesn't exist on other platforms.
Windows users expect their apps to behave in a certain way. Ge
I guess "generally regarded as recreatable" varies from user to user.
Ya, I guess that was a slap-on-the-sly. My point being, many user's experience matches that of MS' design. The design being, you pay later and not now. It's just that many users want to do something "later" and wind up still waiting on the system to make it self available. Users that boot and then load office right away, don't have the same toll to pay. I think that's what I was trying to say. It's simple, you pay now or pay later. There is no exception. It's just that with Linux, I pay now and have a desktop ready to go, when I am. With Windows, I get to login and pay later, when I'm wanting to have a desktop ready to use, when I am. That means, you're the minority rather than the rule; simply because that's how Microsoft designed it to work.
For many, I can see that it would translate to a good thing. For others, like me, it's bad. I prefer to not really worry about it because I rarely reboot and the time "now", or, "later", really all washes out as noise anyways.
I'm not going to give the BIOS over to Linux, since I still use XP primarily
My primary desktop is Linux and I'm still not ready to give my BIOS over to Linux either. Just the same, the point I was hoping to highlight, but sounds like I failed, is that Linux, it self, is not natively slow. It's just purposely made to be so for backwards compatibility. I stress this because if you were to just take the things in Linux which make for faster starts ups, without using special disk re-ordering tricks, Linux would actually come out ahead. Sadly, tricks like this are rearely used, other than on embedded systems because startup time is generally lost in the noise. And, if it's not, that generally means you have serious problems other than startup durations.;) From a JFYI perspective, I've read in the kernel hacker's lists that some have played with ordered block reads to improve startup times. They actually are fairly effective and are complimentary to what Microsoft does.
I guess if it really bothered people that much, these items would get more attention. But, since it's really nothing more than noise for the average user, I don't guess much energy goes into making these things fater under Linux.
Linux is really hurting for some decent EE tools.
I've been hearing that for years and years. While I honestly don't know the current state of things in that regard, I suspect it's still painfully true. The fix is, to be sure to tell your software supplier that you want Linux support. To many mention this problem in passing but never actually let the software developers there is any interest at all.
I mention all of these things because it goes back to perception versus reality. The perception is, "weee....I'm more productive". The reality is, you're not. Which is, I'm guessing, why these things don't get much attention under Linux. The reason? IMO, the kernel developers tend to be more pragmatic than gimmickie, even if gimmicks do buy perception brownie points.
That's a fair remark. For me, they are not able to hide the time when it matters to me. So, clearly we have differing experiences. That hardly invalidates either's position.
Just the same, why does it really matter? Are you having to reboot many times in a day? When software like VMware and colinux, etc, no one should be needing to reboot for days, weeks, or ever years, unless there is something wrong. Which means, it's mostly all noise anyways.
A vague claim that they aren't better engineered ("completely false") because they aren't cross-platform. Yes, lets stick to absolutists definitions, because surely nothing could be well-engineered yet exist for only one platform. You know, like OS X for instance?
You misunderstood. IT was asserted that IE is better because it's not cross platform. That's false. It's absoluetley false. Simple fact is, a crossplatform product requires a higher degree of engineer skill. That's fact. That's what I said. That's the truth. If you want to read more into it, so be it, but don't finger me for your thoughts.
A vague claim that IE has less code just because it's not as HTML-compliant. Lame and amusing
Vague? I thought I was specific. You need to reread again. Fact is, IE is not complaint and is thusly, missing that code. As a result, it's a smaller code base that it would otherwise be, assuming it was made to be compliant. That's fact. If you can't understand that, you need to go elsewhere as I offered 100% fact. That's the way the computer world turns. Period.
A vague claim that Microsoft builds in "basis" that other applications "can't benefit from."
Well, that was a little strong, just the same, it is generally true. It would be more accurate to say that MS builds in biases that most applications don't take advantage of and there and many biases that all applications can't take advantage of. That's the facts. Period.
Just another collection of vague, unproven claims in your typical Thursday story on Slashdot.
Next, you'll request me to prove that 1+1 = 2. First, learn to read. Second, learn to think for your self without Microsoft telling you what they want the answer to be. Period.
Just another vaguely ignornat sole trolling for Microsoft. Shesh. Where do these clueless guys come from...
Let's read this into context. You're basically talking out of your ass as I never said you couldn't. Go oh. Learn to read then you can fall on your sword. Period.
Shesh. What a jerk. Fact is, most applications don't use such methods because they simply don't matter. Which, is a point I highlighted and seems to of missed your ever so clueless brow. Simple fact is, IE has serious baises above and beyond what you seem to suggest.
Grow up and stop being ignorant. While you're at it, stop telling half truths. Worse, stop getting pissed off when someone calls you on it.
Well, all I know is that my own experience is different from yours. Not to mention, my experience is generally regarded as recreatable. That is, while I'm "logged in", my machine is technically worthless until it's finished starting up the system and doing all the things that Linux makes you do up front. In other words, when I have my desktop on Linux, I can immediately start using it. Under 2K and especailly XP, I have to wait, wait, wait before the system is responsive to my applicatin requests. That's the way MS designed their system and that's the way everyone experiences it. I guess this goes back to the perception versus reality difference. Like I said, it's up to you to decide if it's good or bad. I say, "indifferent". You seem to say, "good". Others say, "bad".
It's worth noting, if nothing more than FYI points, there are ways to drastically speed up Linux's start up times. They range from using LinuxBios to changing out the init scripts for scripts which are are to run highly parallel. Last I heard, the init scripts alone, take off 10s of seconds. It's just that people would rather have UNIX and Linux compatibility.
At any rate, I'm really not sure what you mean by, "USABILITY" being faster. If you mean the speed of the overall system as it relates to user responsiveness, then I suspect you have something wrong with your Linux configuration. Usabiity between the two systems should be equally high. Personally, my usability goes way down on Windows systems because it lacks so many of the powerful X features, out of the box anyways. But, I recognize that I'm not the typical win/linux user.
Lastly, I must say that I find it interesting that you find XP to be faster than 2k. XP is widely regarded as being slower (yes, with everything turned off) than 2k, as far as the user interface is concerned.
Some of these differences might center in how we're using our systems. My uses tend to be more of a workstation/desktop while you're may center completely around a MS-desktop solution.
You're only telling half truths here. One of the speed ups that Microsoft does is, they analyze I/O and physically re-order the applications on disk to minimize I/O, thusly increasing startup speed.
Furthermore, you assert that, "they are better engineered that the competition", which is completely false. It requires a superior engineered product to be crossplatform. In this case, IE has a speed advantage because it's NOT crossplatform, thusly allowing for more reasily available platform specific optimizations. It's also easy to forget that IE has less code, because it's far less compliant. Less code means less to load. Then, toss in the fact that significant portions of IE are cached by the OS during startup, gives IE a significant boon.
Long story short, MS has many built in baises for starting up their applications which most applications are not able to benefit from.
After that's all said and done, its the application performance, and not startup time that should really matter unless you're running a crappy OS. After all, these days, you should only need to start your applications once for the duration you're running your computer.
If you really think you're comparing apples to apples, then I think we all understand why most Window's users benchmarks are ignored for what they are; invalid.
Agreed. In the PostgreSQL hacker's mailing list, you can find it commonly stated that the performance difference between 10k and 15k drives are rarely worth the price because performance simply isn't there. Furthermore, if you're hiding behind JBOD or RAID with write cache, chances are you'll never see the 1ms difference in seek. Long story short, save your money on 15k drives and spend it on more memory or a bigger box.
I've used both it and 2K on several machines, and XP boots up ~30 seconds faster
Microsoft tends to spend more time figuring out ways to trick their users into *thinking* that things are faster even though it's actually taking as long, if not longer than previous versions. In this case, you've been tricked. Microsoft moved more stuff after the user is logged on. In other words, your system is still doing all of the things it used to do, plus probably more, it's just that you think it's done.
This is the difference between reality and perception. Microsoft tries very hard to address a user's perception, even at the cost of making reality slower. As is, in the above cited example, Microsoft gave you a login screen, whereby, you can do very little to nothing, but you're satisified thinking it's done, in spite of the fact (reality) that it's not. This means, attempting to do things right after the login screen will more than likely, take much longer than expected. They further hide this fact by making application startup and caching part of the OS boot sequence. Non-cached application startup, following initial login, will more than likely be painfully slow for non-trvial applications, at least until XP actually finishes it's startup.
KDE apps has down right painful startup times, especially if you don't run KDE. That being said, I find parity in application start ups between the two and generally find Linux to be faster for most everything I do, save only for playing games (like NWN).
Some efforts have been going into making KDE and KDE applications start up faster. Just the same, if it bothers you that much, don't run KDE or KDE applications. There are many window managers to pick from. Even GTK+ applications tend to load much faster than KDE applications (C versus C++, which is the root of one of the speed issues).
The overall performance of X and Linux will be faster and more responsive as the 2.6 kernel starts to become more common. A typical desktop user should see something like 20%-40% better performance and responsiveness. Even servers typically see 20%-30% improvement in almost all areas. Improvements like these, make applications like apache and samba, which already blew the doors off of Windows, that much more impressive.
Beyond that, start up time, in my mind, is a complete waste of time. Unlike Windows, Linux does not become unstable as you load more applications into memory. Start your computer and all of your applications (memory is cheap; tuning you swappiness as needed) and never have to load them again. I find that application crashes are rare; well, the ones I run. This means, rarely needing to restart your applications. As such, restart time is lost in noise. Furthermore, system stability can easily be measured in months or years as long as you're not running a closed source 3rd party driver (*cough* nvidia, ati).
Long story short, while I hear you and think you have a valid point, the long of it is, it's completely lost in the noise and really doesn't matter.
Ya, benchmark after benchmark showed all of XP's IPC mechanisms to be much, much slower than previous releases. IIRC, several other subsystems were found to be slower as well. By those in the know, XP is widely regarded as Microsoft's slowest OS release in a long while. The only reason it's not widely realized is that machines constantly get faster and more memory is being used which hides the additional bloat.
Anyone that thinks MS' OS, as a whole, is getting faster with each release is simply not living in our reality.
I had a neighbor that was involved in a guided artillery shell project. He said that some of the more interesting, non-code related issues were, they had to be very careful with the orientation of their surface mount electronics because they had a bad habbit of ripping off or moving in surprising ways.
That's why they were in Africa. That's also why the Allies fought so hard in Africa. For the huge oil fields there. The problem was, Germany couldn't produce enough of it so they needed alternate oil/fuel supplies. It did, however, actually supply a huge portion of their fuels.
Well, it was proved that there is an Iraq/terrorism link, just not a link tied to 9/11. That's the tie he's working with. Remember, the President declared war on terrorism first and foremost. There is a clearly documented paper trail from Saddam and suicide bombers, restitution to their families and funds helping to purchase bomb materials and train these "soldiers".
The president was so successful with his lying techniques that at one time 69% of americans believed that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.
That just happens to prove that 69% of Americans don't pay attention to news at all, and are happy to get their incorrect and invalid news from other people, via lip-service, who also don't pay attention to news at all. You can look at many such suveys and studies. There is a long history of studies proving that the masses of Americans don't pay attention to current events and almost always get it completely wrong. This does not prove someone lied. It proves that the average American is an idiot.
When he says "we don't want to wake up one day to find a mushroom cloud on our soil" during a speech about iraq he is implying that iraq has nuclear weapons without actually saying so.
Well, simple fact is, we really didn't know how far their nuclear program had advanced. That was clearly stated, however, it was offered that the *potential* was that they were even further than worst estimates. All of which was true. Remember, this is when another country suddenly declared they had nuclear weapons and had developed them right under the UN inspector's noses. Ring a bell? Iraq had been caught several times attempting to get materials to advance their program and French and Russia had already been caught several times providin weapons and materials to them. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to talk of the possibilities. Worse had already happened in another rogue country. If you read more into it, it sounds like you're the one that either didn't pay attention to the facts or actually did your own-wink-wink job on your self. Simple fact is, we had tons of bad intelligence. You seem to have a hard time figuring out the difference between bad intelligence and a lie. Simple fact is, if Iraq had more more successful at getting the materials into the country, required for their nuclear program, it would had been much more advanced. It's just the that US and its allies did a better job than initially realized at preventing these types of materials from entering into the country.
The only thing you've managed to convince me is that 69% of Americans are either idiots or simply pay no attention to the news as repeated. The next step is to figure out what side of the percentage you're on.
You're absolutely correct. That's what happens why you type really fast, don't proof read, and don't spell check. You'll find that's typical mistakes for my rushed postings.
Of all the typos and brain cramps that I generate in the 30-seconds that I use per message, that's the only thing you're going to call me on? You really think the/. masses are worthy of serious effort and consideration? You must be new here.
You really, really need to get a life. Short of that, discover a hobby.
Or you can look beyond your window and check out the statistics gathered by the auto makers which support EXACTLY everything I'm saying. In otherwords, you're simply making your self out to be foolish.
After all, it's reasonable to assume such low voltage sparks while operating any electronics.
Yes. The voltage required to make the spark doesn't matter. It just needs an ignition source. A spark, of any size, and the proper air/fuel mixture is all that is needed.
I'm confused on two points here. First, why this was deemed, "insighful", and second, what christians have to do with the subject at hand.
Last I heard, "christians" mainly get negatively involved in life sciences. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand or why it would even be a concern. Especially since this is heavily a physics topic and not a life sciences topic. Worse, even if it were a concern, why would it matter. Unless you have proof that fusion creates souls, no one but zealots are going to listen to these crackpots anyways.
This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the christians about it.
Now, for some karma whoring. Since his comment was deemed karma worthy, surely my comment will make as much sense and someone with reward me accordingly. So, here goes. This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the inanimate carbon rods about it. We all know how involved in physics they are.
Was his comment supposed to be a joke which simply missed its target?
Opps, I missed this the first time through. Sorry. Yes, I have two kids. We plan based on our activities. And, needless to say, my kids fit into my car. Wow! What a concecpt.;)
None of your comments, however, come anywhere near justifying the huge waste and extra danger that the typical SUV/truck owner is placing on the public at large.
Ya, the "moving" excuse is another lame duck. The wasted fuel 99% of the time hardly justifies the need for the other 1%. You could rent a huge truck and still be ahead just in terms of fuel. Like I said, there's a heard mentality with SUV owners and they'll seem to use any excuse to justify it. Well, not that they have to, just the same, it's hugely wasteful. Manufacturer statistics even support that 85%-90% of these owners would be equally or better served by a car. That's the facts. Again, look around at the traffic you drive in. I'm sorry that you're upset that most people are heard animals and don't actually use or even require a SUV/truck in their life. Just the same, that doesn't change the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
"xplatform" and "better engineered" are orthogonal attributes.
;) While we're at it, fix all of the IE bugs, make it compliant, and then make an effort to correctly implement the majority of the CSS specification, then we'll start to be on the same page.
;) Basically, the user's "crafted" experience of the kernel is non-existent, save only when they see the BSOD. ;) Aside from that, the kernel has been worked on and worked on, which really shouldn't be happening considering MS lied about it be a microkernel...oh wait, it's a micro-hybrid kernel...no wait, it's a fully OO-hybrid-micro kernel. In reality, it's a monolithic kernel which got a lot wrong from the start and has been seriously revised and sections completely reworked over the years. Np shame in that, it's just the facts. But, digress. ;)
Maybe in your mind. As a developer and speaking on behalf of every good developer I know, that's simply not true. Crossplatform requires a good design. The more complex the application, the stronger the design has to be. Crossplatform usually means more code, which is working against cache/disk and memory. That translates into slower everything, all things being equal. That means a native advantage, aka, a bias. Try something like Opera which is, in spite of being cross platform, heaivly optimized for Windows. It's much faster than Mozilla or even the smaller footprint brethren.
Platform depenent IE4 was better engineered _and_ better architected than the cross-platform Netscape (upto 4).
You can't honestly expect me to accept remarks about Netscape 4 and older with a straight face can you? LOL. That's water long under the bridge and has no place in current computing discussions.
they do care that it runs badly on their platform
I'm honestly not sure if that's an effort or a slip. Simple fact is, Mozilla is excellent software and runs well on all of it's platforms. If application startup is your sole measure, then I have to exit this conversation which I laugh. Mozilla has a completely different design than IE and even includes many different technologies. Grapht a VB script interface onto IE and load all that extra overhead, and then we'll start talking with a straight face.
xplatform is not a "benefit"
Those two are completely orthogonial to the topic at hand. Good design is of no "benefit" to the user, unless that user wants crossplatform capabilities. Period. Crappy design has nothing to do with satisfying user requirements. I've seen many very poorly designed applications which the user base were happy to use.
Also, since you hoisted xplatform as a feature/benefit of open source
AHh...no, I did not. I hoisted that the original statement was complete BS and the proof to support that position is that crossplatform is techinically harder and more complex. Thusly, to be done right, everything else being equal, requires better engineering. This is as true for closed source applications as it is for open source. I'm sorry, but you are confused.
That said, let me clarify that when I meant "engineered" I did not mean better _architected
Ah! Well, that's a completely different monkey!
NT kernel - damn good
I'd have to disagree with you on that one, but it's neither here or there.
Biases? MS' only bias is that its apps work well on Windows. If Mac users can boo and hiss when someone gives them a non-Carbonized app, why can't Windows users crib when you hand them an app that's obviously not optimized for Windows?
Because only recently have any non-MS developers been able to even think about doing something like this. Worse, those that did, were shot in the foot by Microsoft purposely breaking their applications. That's why. The parallel doesn't exist on other platforms.
Windows users expect their apps to behave in a certain way. Ge
I guess "generally regarded as recreatable" varies from user to user.
;) From a JFYI perspective, I've read in the kernel hacker's lists that some have played with ordered block reads to improve startup times. They actually are fairly effective and are complimentary to what Microsoft does.
Ya, I guess that was a slap-on-the-sly. My point being, many user's experience matches that of MS' design. The design being, you pay later and not now. It's just that many users want to do something "later" and wind up still waiting on the system to make it self available. Users that boot and then load office right away, don't have the same toll to pay. I think that's what I was trying to say. It's simple, you pay now or pay later. There is no exception. It's just that with Linux, I pay now and have a desktop ready to go, when I am. With Windows, I get to login and pay later, when I'm wanting to have a desktop ready to use, when I am. That means, you're the minority rather than the rule; simply because that's how Microsoft designed it to work.
For many, I can see that it would translate to a good thing. For others, like me, it's bad. I prefer to not really worry about it because I rarely reboot and the time "now", or, "later", really all washes out as noise anyways.
I'm not going to give the BIOS over to Linux, since I still use XP primarily
My primary desktop is Linux and I'm still not ready to give my BIOS over to Linux either. Just the same, the point I was hoping to highlight, but sounds like I failed, is that Linux, it self, is not natively slow. It's just purposely made to be so for backwards compatibility. I stress this because if you were to just take the things in Linux which make for faster starts ups, without using special disk re-ordering tricks, Linux would actually come out ahead. Sadly, tricks like this are rearely used, other than on embedded systems because startup time is generally lost in the noise. And, if it's not, that generally means you have serious problems other than startup durations.
I guess if it really bothered people that much, these items would get more attention. But, since it's really nothing more than noise for the average user, I don't guess much energy goes into making these things fater under Linux.
Linux is really hurting for some decent EE tools.
I've been hearing that for years and years. While I honestly don't know the current state of things in that regard, I suspect it's still painfully true. The fix is, to be sure to tell your software supplier that you want Linux support. To many mention this problem in passing but never actually let the software developers there is any interest at all.
I mention all of these things because it goes back to perception versus reality. The perception is, "weee....I'm more productive". The reality is, you're not. Which is, I'm guessing, why these things don't get much attention under Linux. The reason? IMO, the kernel developers tend to be more pragmatic than gimmickie, even if gimmicks do buy perception brownie points.
That's a fair remark. For me, they are not able to hide the time when it matters to me. So, clearly we have differing experiences. That hardly invalidates either's position.
Just the same, why does it really matter? Are you having to reboot many times in a day? When software like VMware and colinux, etc, no one should be needing to reboot for days, weeks, or ever years, unless there is something wrong. Which means, it's mostly all noise anyways.
A vague claim that they aren't better engineered ("completely false") because they aren't cross-platform. Yes, lets stick to absolutists definitions, because surely nothing could be well-engineered yet exist for only one platform. You know, like OS X for instance?
You misunderstood. IT was asserted that IE is better because it's not cross platform. That's false. It's absoluetley false. Simple fact is, a crossplatform product requires a higher degree of engineer skill. That's fact. That's what I said. That's the truth. If you want to read more into it, so be it, but don't finger me for your thoughts.
A vague claim that IE has less code just because it's not as HTML-compliant. Lame and amusing
Vague? I thought I was specific. You need to reread again. Fact is, IE is not complaint and is thusly, missing that code. As a result, it's a smaller code base that it would otherwise be, assuming it was made to be compliant. That's fact. If you can't understand that, you need to go elsewhere as I offered 100% fact. That's the way the computer world turns. Period.
A vague claim that Microsoft builds in "basis" that other applications "can't benefit from."
Well, that was a little strong, just the same, it is generally true. It would be more accurate to say that MS builds in biases that most applications don't take advantage of and there and many biases that all applications can't take advantage of. That's the facts. Period.
Just another collection of vague, unproven claims in your typical Thursday story on Slashdot.
Next, you'll request me to prove that 1+1 = 2. First, learn to read. Second, learn to think for your self without Microsoft telling you what they want the answer to be. Period.
Just another vaguely ignornat sole trolling for Microsoft. Shesh. Where do these clueless guys come from...
Let's read this into context. You're basically talking out of your ass as I never said you couldn't. Go oh. Learn to read then you can fall on your sword. Period.
Shesh. What a jerk. Fact is, most applications don't use such methods because they simply don't matter. Which, is a point I highlighted and seems to of missed your ever so clueless brow. Simple fact is, IE has serious baises above and beyond what you seem to suggest.
Grow up and stop being ignorant. While you're at it, stop telling half truths. Worse, stop getting pissed off when someone calls you on it.
Wow! Not only are you rude, but you're ignorant of the facts too.
That's sad.
Well, all I know is that my own experience is different from yours. Not to mention, my experience is generally regarded as recreatable. That is, while I'm "logged in", my machine is technically worthless until it's finished starting up the system and doing all the things that Linux makes you do up front. In other words, when I have my desktop on Linux, I can immediately start using it. Under 2K and especailly XP, I have to wait, wait, wait before the system is responsive to my applicatin requests. That's the way MS designed their system and that's the way everyone experiences it. I guess this goes back to the perception versus reality difference. Like I said, it's up to you to decide if it's good or bad. I say, "indifferent". You seem to say, "good". Others say, "bad".
It's worth noting, if nothing more than FYI points, there are ways to drastically speed up Linux's start up times. They range from using LinuxBios to changing out the init scripts for scripts which are are to run highly parallel. Last I heard, the init scripts alone, take off 10s of seconds. It's just that people would rather have UNIX and Linux compatibility.
At any rate, I'm really not sure what you mean by, "USABILITY" being faster. If you mean the speed of the overall system as it relates to user responsiveness, then I suspect you have something wrong with your Linux configuration. Usabiity between the two systems should be equally high. Personally, my usability goes way down on Windows systems because it lacks so many of the powerful X features, out of the box anyways. But, I recognize that I'm not the typical win/linux user.
Lastly, I must say that I find it interesting that you find XP to be faster than 2k. XP is widely regarded as being slower (yes, with everything turned off) than 2k, as far as the user interface is concerned.
Some of these differences might center in how we're using our systems. My uses tend to be more of a workstation/desktop while you're may center completely around a MS-desktop solution.
You're only telling half truths here. One of the speed ups that Microsoft does is, they analyze I/O and physically re-order the applications on disk to minimize I/O, thusly increasing startup speed.
Furthermore, you assert that, "they are better engineered that the competition", which is completely false. It requires a superior engineered product to be crossplatform. In this case, IE has a speed advantage because it's NOT crossplatform, thusly allowing for more reasily available platform specific optimizations. It's also easy to forget that IE has less code, because it's far less compliant. Less code means less to load. Then, toss in the fact that significant portions of IE are cached by the OS during startup, gives IE a significant boon.
Long story short, MS has many built in baises for starting up their applications which most applications are not able to benefit from.
After that's all said and done, its the application performance, and not startup time that should really matter unless you're running a crappy OS. After all, these days, you should only need to start your applications once for the duration you're running your computer.
If you really think you're comparing apples to apples, then I think we all understand why most Window's users benchmarks are ignored for what they are; invalid.
Agreed. In the PostgreSQL hacker's mailing list, you can find it commonly stated that the performance difference between 10k and 15k drives are rarely worth the price because performance simply isn't there. Furthermore, if you're hiding behind JBOD or RAID with write cache, chances are you'll never see the 1ms difference in seek. Long story short, save your money on 15k drives and spend it on more memory or a bigger box.
I've used both it and 2K on several machines, and XP boots up ~30 seconds faster
Microsoft tends to spend more time figuring out ways to trick their users into *thinking* that things are faster even though it's actually taking as long, if not longer than previous versions. In this case, you've been tricked. Microsoft moved more stuff after the user is logged on. In other words, your system is still doing all of the things it used to do, plus probably more, it's just that you think it's done.
This is the difference between reality and perception. Microsoft tries very hard to address a user's perception, even at the cost of making reality slower. As is, in the above cited example, Microsoft gave you a login screen, whereby, you can do very little to nothing, but you're satisified thinking it's done, in spite of the fact (reality) that it's not. This means, attempting to do things right after the login screen will more than likely, take much longer than expected. They further hide this fact by making application startup and caching part of the OS boot sequence. Non-cached application startup, following initial login, will more than likely be painfully slow for non-trvial applications, at least until XP actually finishes it's startup.
Good or bad, you decide.
KDE apps has down right painful startup times, especially if you don't run KDE. That being said, I find parity in application start ups between the two and generally find Linux to be faster for most everything I do, save only for playing games (like NWN).
Some efforts have been going into making KDE and KDE applications start up faster. Just the same, if it bothers you that much, don't run KDE or KDE applications. There are many window managers to pick from. Even GTK+ applications tend to load much faster than KDE applications (C versus C++, which is the root of one of the speed issues).
The overall performance of X and Linux will be faster and more responsive as the 2.6 kernel starts to become more common. A typical desktop user should see something like 20%-40% better performance and responsiveness. Even servers typically see 20%-30% improvement in almost all areas. Improvements like these, make applications like apache and samba, which already blew the doors off of Windows, that much more impressive.
Beyond that, start up time, in my mind, is a complete waste of time. Unlike Windows, Linux does not become unstable as you load more applications into memory. Start your computer and all of your applications (memory is cheap; tuning you swappiness as needed) and never have to load them again. I find that application crashes are rare; well, the ones I run. This means, rarely needing to restart your applications. As such, restart time is lost in noise. Furthermore, system stability can easily be measured in months or years as long as you're not running a closed source 3rd party driver (*cough* nvidia, ati).
Long story short, while I hear you and think you have a valid point, the long of it is, it's completely lost in the noise and really doesn't matter.
Ya, benchmark after benchmark showed all of XP's IPC mechanisms to be much, much slower than previous releases. IIRC, several other subsystems were found to be slower as well. By those in the know, XP is widely regarded as Microsoft's slowest OS release in a long while. The only reason it's not widely realized is that machines constantly get faster and more memory is being used which hides the additional bloat.
Anyone that thinks MS' OS, as a whole, is getting faster with each release is simply not living in our reality.
I had a neighbor that was involved in a guided artillery shell project. He said that some of the more interesting, non-code related issues were, they had to be very careful with the orientation of their surface mount electronics because they had a bad habbit of ripping off or moving in surprising ways.
That's why they were in Africa. That's also why the Allies fought so hard in Africa. For the huge oil fields there. The problem was, Germany couldn't produce enough of it so they needed alternate oil/fuel supplies. It did, however, actually supply a huge portion of their fuels.
With genetic engineering, it is possible that the efficiency of our engineers could be increased, allow solar cells to work better. ;)
Seriously, I was thinking the same thing. Seems like some biotech could be applied to further increase the success of such a project.
Because you can't get high and stupid off of sunflowers.
Yep! I was going to ask if that was related to the pre-gps naval/aviation navigation equipment.
Sounds like it is.
Well, it was proved that there is an Iraq/terrorism link, just not a link tied to 9/11. That's the tie he's working with. Remember, the President declared war on terrorism first and foremost. There is a clearly documented paper trail from Saddam and suicide bombers, restitution to their families and funds helping to purchase bomb materials and train these "soldiers".
The president was so successful with his lying techniques that at one time 69% of americans believed that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.
That just happens to prove that 69% of Americans don't pay attention to news at all, and are happy to get their incorrect and invalid news from other people, via lip-service, who also don't pay attention to news at all. You can look at many such suveys and studies. There is a long history of studies proving that the masses of Americans don't pay attention to current events and almost always get it completely wrong. This does not prove someone lied. It proves that the average American is an idiot.
When he says "we don't want to wake up one day to find a mushroom cloud on our soil" during a speech about iraq he is implying that iraq has nuclear weapons without actually saying so.
Well, simple fact is, we really didn't know how far their nuclear program had advanced. That was clearly stated, however, it was offered that the *potential* was that they were even further than worst estimates. All of which was true. Remember, this is when another country suddenly declared they had nuclear weapons and had developed them right under the UN inspector's noses. Ring a bell? Iraq had been caught several times attempting to get materials to advance their program and French and Russia had already been caught several times providin weapons and materials to them. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to talk of the possibilities. Worse had already happened in another rogue country. If you read more into it, it sounds like you're the one that either didn't pay attention to the facts or actually did your own-wink-wink job on your self. Simple fact is, we had tons of bad intelligence. You seem to have a hard time figuring out the difference between bad intelligence and a lie. Simple fact is, if Iraq had more more successful at getting the materials into the country, required for their nuclear program, it would had been much more advanced. It's just the that US and its allies did a better job than initially realized at preventing these types of materials from entering into the country.
The only thing you've managed to convince me is that 69% of Americans are either idiots or simply pay no attention to the news as repeated. The next step is to figure out what side of the percentage you're on.
You're absolutely correct. That's what happens why you type really fast, don't proof read, and don't spell check. You'll find that's typical mistakes for my rushed postings.
Thanks.
You need to get a life. That's pethetic.
/. masses are worthy of serious effort and consideration? You must be new here.
Of all the typos and brain cramps that I generate in the 30-seconds that I use per message, that's the only thing you're going to call me on? You really think the
You really, really need to get a life. Short of that, discover a hobby.
Shesh.
Or you can look beyond your window and check out the statistics gathered by the auto makers which support EXACTLY everything I'm saying. In otherwords, you're simply making your self out to be foolish.
Go ahead, check the facts.
After all, it's reasonable to assume such low voltage sparks while operating any electronics.
Yes. The voltage required to make the spark doesn't matter. It just needs an ignition source. A spark, of any size, and the proper air/fuel mixture is all that is needed.
I'm confused on two points here. First, why this was deemed, "insighful", and second, what christians have to do with the subject at hand.
Last I heard, "christians" mainly get negatively involved in life sciences. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand or why it would even be a concern. Especially since this is heavily a physics topic and not a life sciences topic. Worse, even if it were a concern, why would it matter. Unless you have proof that fusion creates souls, no one but zealots are going to listen to these crackpots anyways.
This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the christians about it.
Now, for some karma whoring. Since his comment was deemed karma worthy, surely my comment will make as much sense and someone with reward me accordingly. So, here goes. This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the inanimate carbon rods about it. We all know how involved in physics they are.
Was his comment supposed to be a joke which simply missed its target?
That's an excellent point.
Maybe the poster considers their minivan to be a SUV. Not that I know what he/she is driving. Hopefully someone will mod you up as insightful.
Do you have kids? I'm guessing no
;)
Opps, I missed this the first time through. Sorry. Yes, I have two kids. We plan based on our activities. And, needless to say, my kids fit into my car. Wow! What a concecpt.
None of your comments, however, come anywhere near justifying the huge waste and extra danger that the typical SUV/truck owner is placing on the public at large.
Ya, the "moving" excuse is another lame duck. The wasted fuel 99% of the time hardly justifies the need for the other 1%. You could rent a huge truck and still be ahead just in terms of fuel. Like I said, there's a heard mentality with SUV owners and they'll seem to use any excuse to justify it. Well, not that they have to, just the same, it's hugely wasteful. Manufacturer statistics even support that 85%-90% of these owners would be equally or better served by a car. That's the facts. Again, look around at the traffic you drive in. I'm sorry that you're upset that most people are heard animals and don't actually use or even require a SUV/truck in their life. Just the same, that doesn't change the facts.