[News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux ; Trust me on this ,----[ Quote ] | # “(Vista has) no new features” - None at all. For the last 5 years, everyone | at Microsoft went on a cooking course. Thus had to drop features to make | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

  1. [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Trust me on this

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | # “(Vista has) no new features” - None at all. For the last 5 years, everyone
    | at Microsoft went on a cooking course. Thus had to drop features to make
    | time for icing on the cake.
    |
    | # “(Vista has) no speed boost” - A dedicated performance team inside the
    | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve Solitaire’s
    | frame rate.
    |
    | # “Microsoft provided these programs in the ‘Ultimate’ version of Vista as a
    | weak attempt to compete with Apple’s iLife software suite.” - The biggest
    | Windows Vista secret yet to be revealed is a home productivity suite.
    | Because Robert has obviously used it.
    |
    | [...]
    `----

    http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...rt-rittmuller/

    The Edsel of operating systems.


    Related:

    Linux Devs, Architects Talk Open Source at Collaboration Summit

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Acceptance of the Linux open source operating system has been rising for
    | years. However, the last six to nine months have seen tremendous development
    | of the Linux desktop, according to the Linux Foundation's Amanda McPherson.
    | That progress is remarkable compared to the six years it took Microsoft to
    | get from Windows XP to Windows Vista, she added.
    `----

    http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/57947.html


    Vista: They took five years for this?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I was thus prepared for low-key peformance with lots of eye candy. I
    | was disappointed.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Before I installed Vista, I checked the hardware by installing a
    | Linux distribution - that's something which I do with every box I
    | build. This time I used PCLinuxOS and incidentally noticed that it
    | has much to recommend.
    `----

    http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?o...14&Itemid=1091


    From the ‘I’m glad I’m not a Vista salesperson’ files

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | What do you think Microsoft’s Vista marketing team can and should do to
    | end customer confusion and uncertainty around Vista?
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=528


    Don't wait for Vista SP1, pleads Microsoft

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Some customers may be waiting to adopt Windows Vista because they've heard
    | rumors about device or application compatibility issues, or because they
    | think they should wait for a service pack release," the company said in a
    | newsletter. *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | No wonder the company needs a "fact-rich program" to convince people why they
    | should "proceed with confidence" -- its own announcements must have given
    | plenty of business IT managers shaky legs. *
    `----

    http://apcmag.com/6458/dont_wait_for...eads_microsoft

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Trust me on this
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | # “(Vista has) no new features” - None at all. For the last 5 years,
    > | # everyone
    > | at Microsoft went on a cooking course. Thus had to drop features to
    > | make time for icing on the cake.
    > |


    That isn't really true, Vista has hit some new ground, get off the surface
    and look underneath. Ok so it wasn't well implemented, but the ideas for
    security were good ideas. They will probably, in time, get them working as
    they should. So Linux and others shouldn't get complacent in the meantime.

    > | # “(Vista has) no speed boost” - A dedicated performance team inside the
    > | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve
    > | Solitaire’s frame rate.
    > |


    I have heard that too, so many on first boot coming into the chat group I
    use saying, on their first night with it 'It loads and runs faster than XP'
    then a few days later 'Actually, now that the anti-virus, security suite,
    ten million things that insist on being on the bar next to the clock,
    screen widgets (simmilar to those you get with Opera), by the time all of
    this is going you have had breakfast waiting for it to start up and all
    your resources are gone'.

    > | # “Microsoft provided these programs in the ‘Ultimate’ version of Vista
    > | # as a
    > | weak attempt to compete with Apple’s iLife software suite.” - The
    > | biggest Windows Vista secret yet to be revealed is a home
    > | productivity suite. Because Robert has obviously used it.
    > |


    I've said it before and I'll say it again, because though the rest of you
    are descended from Monkeys, I am descended from Parrots, hence the blue
    collar, the pretty desktop does not make the slightest difference to anyone
    who uses a computer. The first thing you do after log in is open one of
    more applications, so the desktop is now out of sight, doesn't matter how
    pretty it is if you can't see it.
    ..

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    ____/ BearItAll on Monday 19 November 2007 10:09 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Trust me on this
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | # “(Vista has) no new features” - None at all. For the last 5 years,
    >> | # everyone
    >> | at Microsoft went on a cooking course. Thus had to drop features to
    >> | make time for icing on the cake.
    >> |

    >
    > That isn't really true, Vista has hit some new ground, get off the surface
    > and look underneath. Ok so it wasn't well implemented, but the ideas for
    > security were good ideas. They will probably, in time, get them working as
    > they should. So Linux and others shouldn't get complacent in the meantime.
    >
    >> | # “(Vista has) no speed boost” - A dedicated performance team inside the
    >> | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve
    >> | Solitaire’s frame rate.
    >> |

    >
    > I have heard that too, so many on first boot coming into the chat group I
    > use saying, on their first night with it 'It loads and runs faster than XP'
    > then a few days later 'Actually, now that the anti-virus, security suite,
    > ten million things that insist on being on the bar next to the clock,
    > screen widgets (simmilar to those you get with Opera), by the time all of
    > this is going you have had breakfast waiting for it to start up and all
    > your resources are gone'.


    Which goes back to the previous point. Underneath, the structural deficiencies
    remain in tact.

    >> | # “Microsoft provided these programs in the ‘Ultimate’ version of Vista
    >> | # as a
    >> | weak attempt to compete with Apple’s iLife software suite.” - The
    >> | biggest Windows Vista secret yet to be revealed is a home
    >> | productivity suite. Because Robert has obviously used it.
    >> |

    >
    > I've said it before and I'll say it again, because though the rest of you
    > are descended from Monkeys, I am descended from Parrots, hence the blue
    > collar, the pretty desktop does not make the slightest difference to anyone
    > who uses a computer. The first thing you do after log in is open one of
    > more applications, so the desktop is now out of sight, doesn't matter how
    > pretty it is if you can't see it.


    If you do see it, then you are not using your workspace effectively (not even
    on my almost-4000-pixels-wide display). If you do work, then looks matter very
    little. Unless a friend comes over and you want to show off some visuals you
    would never bother with otherwise...

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 129 total, 1 running, 127 sleeping, 1 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:09:01 +0000, BearItAll wrote:

    >> | # “(Vista has) no speed boost” - A dedicated performance team inside the
    >> | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve
    >> | Solitaire’s frame rate.
    >> |

    >
    > I have heard that too, so many on first boot coming into the chat group I
    > use saying, on their first night with it 'It loads and runs faster than XP'
    > then a few days later 'Actually, now that the anti-virus, security suite,
    > ten million things that insist on being on the bar next to the clock,
    > screen widgets (simmilar to those you get with Opera), by the time all of
    > this is going you have had breakfast waiting for it to start up and all
    > your resources are gone'.


    I just fired up Vista on a Toshiba P200. It's really quite awful.
    Constantly getting their new version of the "hourglass icon" and waiting
    for stuff. It's definitely slower than XP.



  5. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt

    wrote
    on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:51:14 -0800
    :
    > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:09:01 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
    >
    >>> | # ?(Vista has) no speed boost? - A dedicated performance team inside the
    >>> | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve
    >>> | Solitaire?s frame rate.
    >>> |

    >>
    >> I have heard that too, so many on first boot coming into the chat group I
    >> use saying, on their first night with it 'It loads and runs faster than XP'
    >> then a few days later 'Actually, now that the anti-virus, security suite,
    >> ten million things that insist on being on the bar next to the clock,
    >> screen widgets (simmilar to those you get with Opera), by the time all of
    >> this is going you have had breakfast waiting for it to start up and all
    >> your resources are gone'.

    >
    > I just fired up Vista on a Toshiba P200. It's really quite awful.
    > Constantly getting their new version of the "hourglass icon" and waiting
    > for stuff. It's definitely slower than XP.
    >


    Curious, since the specs for the laptop suggest that it
    is running with 2 GB RAM, 2.16 GHz processor, 160 GB or
    320 GB drive space (single or dual), and a GeForce Go 7600
    graphics card.

    http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm

    For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    runs "really quite awful", apparently.

    Then again, I have XP on this one box and it has 1 GB
    to run with -- and runs like a snail. True, it's a fast
    snail, but it's a snail, nonetheless.

    Part of it is probably that antivirus, but I for one think
    Linux is far peppier generally; certainly it is far more
    responsive (the issue is a subtle one, granted).

    So I don't know. Windows may win because of marketing,
    but it is not going to win in the actual day-to-day race
    unless Microsoft dumbs us down enough to expect sluggish,
    unpredictable behavior from our machines...and here in
    COLA at least I for one think that we know better. :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    try our new color changing variant?

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:40:34 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:51:14 -0800
    > :
    >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:09:01 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
    >>
    >>>> | # ?(Vista has) no speed boost? - A dedicated performance team inside the
    >>>> | Windows development division focused solely on how to improve
    >>>> | Solitaire?s frame rate.
    >>>> |
    >>>
    >>> I have heard that too, so many on first boot coming into the chat group I
    >>> use saying, on their first night with it 'It loads and runs faster than XP'
    >>> then a few days later 'Actually, now that the anti-virus, security suite,
    >>> ten million things that insist on being on the bar next to the clock,
    >>> screen widgets (simmilar to those you get with Opera), by the time all of
    >>> this is going you have had breakfast waiting for it to start up and all
    >>> your resources are gone'.

    >>
    >> I just fired up Vista on a Toshiba P200. It's really quite awful.
    >> Constantly getting their new version of the "hourglass icon" and waiting
    >> for stuff. It's definitely slower than XP.
    >>

    >
    > Curious, since the specs for the laptop suggest that it
    > is running with 2 GB RAM, 2.16 GHz processor, 160 GB or
    > 320 GB drive space (single or dual), and a GeForce Go 7600
    > graphics card.


    It only has 1GB of RAM, 160GB HDD and a Core Duo processor. Not sure of
    the Video card. Everything "just worked".

    >
    > http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >
    > For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    > And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    > runs "really quite awful", apparently.


    No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    seem, but I was also doing admin operations.

    But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    user.

    That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop :-)

    >
    > Then again, I have XP on this one box and it has 1 GB
    > to run with -- and runs like a snail. True, it's a fast
    > snail, but it's a snail, nonetheless.
    >
    > Part of it is probably that antivirus, but I for one think
    > Linux is far peppier generally; certainly it is far more
    > responsive (the issue is a subtle one, granted).
    >
    > So I don't know. Windows may win because of marketing,
    > but it is not going to win in the actual day-to-day race
    > unless Microsoft dumbs us down enough to expect sluggish,
    > unpredictable behavior from our machines...and here in
    > COLA at least I for one think that we know better. :-)
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    > try our new color changing variant?



  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:

    >> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>
    >> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >> runs "really quite awful", apparently.

    >
    > No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    > anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    > seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >
    > But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    > user.


    Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    operations that make it seem slow at first.

    I'm currently on a fairly equivelent machine (though a desktop). E6300
    Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard disk, nVidia GF 7100 GS. All told, this
    machine cost me about $400 to build (not counting monitor).

    It's not "slow" by any means.

    > That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop :-)


    You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch

    wrote
    on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600
    <1zpz1w37gvu9.dlg@funkenbusch.com>:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >
    >>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>
    >>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.

    >>
    >> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>
    >> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >> user.

    >
    > Vista takes a few days to "settle down".


    In its way, so does Linux -- but under user control. Consider
    it Linux and the user getting to know one another. :-)

    > It has to index search the drive,
    > it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    > operations that make it seem slow at first.


    Seem?

    >
    > I'm currently on a fairly equivelent machine (though a desktop). E6300
    > Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard disk, nVidia GF 7100 GS. All told, this
    > machine cost me about $400 to build (not counting monitor).
    >
    > It's not "slow" by any means.


    With that much horsepower you'd be better off fragging opponents
    in a 3D shootemup. ;-)

    >
    >> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop :-)

    >
    > You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.


    This after you comment about Vista's indexing the drive
    (which requires it to go through and look at just about
    every block thereof; one hopes that it doesn't move
    the head excessively while doing so but I know of no
    contemporary filesystem that has a clue in that area yet,
    though VMS at one point did try to sort disk I/O).

    You're weird, Erik.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >
    >>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>
    >>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.

    >>
    >> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>
    >> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >> user.


    >Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive


    disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    3.0?



  10. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad

    wrote
    on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
    :
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>
    >>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>
    >>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>
    >>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>
    >>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>> user.

    >
    >>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive

    >
    > disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    > 3.0?
    >


    Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
    on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
    wait for it ... Linux.

    Oh, the horror.



    Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
    and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
    conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
    peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
    void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  11. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


    >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
    >
    > wrote
    >on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
    >:
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>
    >>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>
    >>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>> user.

    >>
    >>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive

    >>
    >> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >> 3.0?
    >>


    >Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
    >on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
    >wait for it ... Linux.


    >Oh, the horror.


    >


    >Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
    >and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
    >conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
    >peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.


    Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

  12. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:04:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    >> Vista takes a few days to "settle down".

    >
    > In its way, so does Linux -- but under user control. Consider
    > it Linux and the user getting to know one another. :-)


    What if the user doesn't want to get to know Linux in that much detail?

    >> It has to index search the drive,
    >> it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >> operations that make it seem slow at first.

    >
    > Seem?


    I'm referring to peoples overall impression of Vista, not "Vista while it's
    still doing it's baseline initialization tasks"

    >> I'm currently on a fairly equivelent machine (though a desktop). E6300
    >> Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard disk, nVidia GF 7100 GS. All told, this
    >> machine cost me about $400 to build (not counting monitor).
    >>
    >> It's not "slow" by any means.

    >
    > With that much horsepower you'd be better off fragging opponents
    > in a 3D shootemup. ;-)


    This isn't a monster machine by any measure. An E6300 is the lowest end
    "performance" processor at 1.8 Ghz. Cost of the chip: $170. The 7100GS is
    an ultra low-end 7000 series, cost $49. Motherboard was $79, 1GB ram was
    $35. Toss in a 160GB hard disk and DVD-RW and total cost was almost $400.

    This is not a gaming rig by any extent of the imagination. Hell, the video
    card alone kills that.

    This was the same setup that I initially tested Ubuntu under.

    >>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop :-)

    >>
    >> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >
    > This after you comment about Vista's indexing the drive
    > (which requires it to go through and look at just about
    > every block thereof; one hopes that it doesn't move
    > the head excessively while doing so but I know of no
    > contemporary filesystem that has a clue in that area yet,
    > though VMS at one point did try to sort disk I/O).


    The hard disk is designed for that. It was not designed for millions of
    APM power cycles, like Ubuntu puts it through.

  13. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>
    >>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>
    >>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>
    >>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>
    >>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>> user.

    >
    >>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive

    >
    > disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    > 3.0?


    The defrag also rearranges the files for faster startup.

  14. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>
    >>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it
    >>>> would seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>
    >>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>> user.

    >>
    >>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the
    >>>drive, it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive

    >>
    >> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >> 3.0?

    >
    > The defrag also rearranges the files for faster startup.


    Which is needed very much, given that Vista is so extremely slow
    Every µSecond will help to boost the perceived "speed"
    --
    Warning: You have moved the mouse.
    Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent


  15. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad

    wrote
    on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:35:08 GMT
    :
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
    >>
    >> wrote
    >>on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
    >>:
    >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>>> user.
    >>>
    >>>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >>>
    >>> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >>> 3.0?
    >>>

    >
    >>Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
    >>on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
    >>wait for it ... Linux.

    >
    >>Oh, the horror.

    >
    >>

    >
    >>Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
    >>and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
    >>conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
    >>peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.

    >
    > Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.


    Well, yes. :-) Of course fsck.ext2 isn't a defragger
    anyway; it's a consistency checker. (There is a defragger
    but I don't know its name and haven't used it. I use
    reiserfs anyway.)

    Of course my inner pedant is reminding me that filesystems
    need defragmentation about as much as a glass of water needs
    to be consumed; the issue is a conditional ("in order to
    improve performance, what do I need to do?") which gets
    a little complicated.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
    >>
    >> wrote
    >>on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
    >>:
    >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>>> user.
    >>>
    >>>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >>>
    >>> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >>> 3.0?
    >>>

    >
    >>Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
    >>on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
    >>wait for it ... Linux.

    >
    >>Oh, the horror.

    >
    >>

    >
    >>Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
    >>and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
    >>conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
    >>peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.

    >
    > Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.


    Absolutely.
    Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    filesystems don't fragment.

    I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how dumb he is?

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:41 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

    >> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >
    > Absolutely.
    > Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    > filesystems don't fragment.
    >
    > I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    > someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    > troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how dumb he is?


    There are 2... well, maybe 3 possible reasons the statement "linux
    filesystems don't need defragmenting" could be true.

    1) Linx filesystems don't fragment (we know that's not true, and you are
    admitting to as much here)

    2) Linux filesystems do not suffer any performance degradation from
    fragmentation (that's a silly argument)

    3) Linux filesystems automatically defrag themselves (which is, in effect
    saying #1, thus also not true).

    If none of those are true, then your statement is provably false. If Linux
    filesystems can fragment, and fragmentation results in degraded
    performance, then by definition Linux filesystems will need defragmenting
    at some point in time.

    So, either you were claiming that linux fileysstems don't fragment, or you
    were claiming that they don't suffer any performance penalty from
    fragmentaiton. Which falsehood were you claiming?

    Yes, i'm being a pedant here because you are being a pedant. You might
    have meant "Linux filesystems don't need defragmenting often" or maybe
    "Linux filesystems don't fragment often, so defragmenting isn't usually
    necessary" or maybe even "Linux filesystems fragment so infrequently that
    most people just don't bother to defragment them".

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:10:25 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>
    >>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>
    >>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>> user.

    >>
    >>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive

    >>
    >> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >> 3.0?


    >The defrag also rearranges the files for faster startup.


    You are quite the commedian. You sound like an audio salesman
    reporting that oversampling CD players involve reading the media multiple
    times and taking an average. You're talking out of your ass.

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:35:20 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


    >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
    >
    > wrote
    >on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:35:08 GMT
    >:
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>>on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
    >>>:
    >>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>>>> user.
    >>>>
    >>>>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >>>>
    >>>> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >>>> 3.0?
    >>>>

    >>
    >>>Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
    >>>on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
    >>>wait for it ... Linux.

    >>
    >>>Oh, the horror.

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>>Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
    >>>and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
    >>>conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
    >>>peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.

    >>
    >> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.


    >Well, yes. :-) Of course fsck.ext2 isn't a defragger
    >anyway; it's a consistency checker. (There is a defragger
    >but I don't know its name and haven't used it. I use
    >reiserfs anyway.)


    Modern file systems don't need defragmentation. That late 70's technology
    hasn't quite made its way into microsoft.

  20. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch

    wrote
    on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:09:34 -0600
    :
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:04:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >>> Vista takes a few days to "settle down".

    >>
    >> In its way, so does Linux -- but under user control. Consider
    >> it Linux and the user getting to know one another. :-)

    >
    > What if the user doesn't want to get to know Linux in that much detail?


    I'm still wondering about Vista "settling down",
    admittedly. But never mind; the user is bound to notice
    subtle differences between Linux and Windows.

    As a personal example: WinXP does not recognize my
    NX9010's pressure-sensitive pad. This pad is of course
    the pointer device, but under Linux one can also tap the
    pad to mouseclick. While mildly annoying at times it's
    also very nice.

    Under WinXP...nope. Gotta use the button.

    Now, granted, it depends heavily on the user. Things move
    around between the two offerings -- the new "intuitive
    ribbon" interface on Word2007 in particular is going
    to make life interesting for both Windows and Linux
    (Windows because the users have to now learn it, Linux
    because somebody out there will probably think it's a good
    idea to implement/imitate it -- notice, for example, that
    Java's Swing filerequester copied the horizontal scrolling
    capability first introduced in Win95).

    >
    >>> It has to index search the drive,
    >>> it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >>> operations that make it seem slow at first.

    >>
    >> Seem?

    >
    > I'm referring to peoples overall impression of Vista, not
    > "Vista while it's still doing it's baseline initialization tasks"


    The problem is that first impressions are very important.
    If Vista is still "settling in", the user might get a
    little confused as to its performance parameters.

    There is also the very cynical possibility that the
    user, by getting used to the "slow Vista" (during its
    settling-in phase), will be so pleasantly surprised
    when Vista speeds up that he won't want to switch
    to anything else.

    Interesting design on Microsoft's part -- if this was deliberate.

    >
    >>> I'm currently on a fairly equivelent machine (though a desktop). E6300
    >>> Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard disk, nVidia GF 7100 GS. All told, this
    >>> machine cost me about $400 to build (not counting monitor).
    >>>
    >>> It's not "slow" by any means.

    >>
    >> With that much horsepower you'd be better off fragging opponents
    >> in a 3D shootemup. ;-)

    >
    > This isn't a monster machine by any measure. An E6300 is the lowest end
    > "performance" processor at 1.8 Ghz. Cost of the chip: $170.


    Gack. If that's a low end processor I've got news for you; it's
    way overpriced. MC68000s in particular are probably available
    for $10. Of course MC68000s don't exactly have an MMU either but
    $170 for a low end chip seems to me a bit much.

    > The 7100GS is
    > an ultra low-end 7000 series, cost $49. Motherboard was $79, 1GB ram was
    > $35. Toss in a 160GB hard disk and DVD-RW and total cost was almost $400.
    >
    > This is not a gaming rig by any extent of the imagination. Hell, the video
    > card alone kills that.
    >
    > This was the same setup that I initially tested Ubuntu under.


    And of course Vista Aero runs fine on this, right?

    >
    >>>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop :-)
    >>>
    >>> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >>
    >> This after you comment about Vista's indexing the drive
    >> (which requires it to go through and look at just about
    >> every block thereof; one hopes that it doesn't move
    >> the head excessively while doing so but I know of no
    >> contemporary filesystem that has a clue in that area yet,
    >> though VMS at one point did try to sort disk I/O).

    >
    > The hard disk is designed for that. It was not designed for millions of
    > APM power cycles, like Ubuntu puts it through.


    Interesting claim. Cite?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast