Slashdot Log In
Vista is Slower, But XP Is Still Dying
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 05, 2008 06:26 PM
from the ugly-truth dept.
from the ugly-truth dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Though the Redmond software giant may be extending the lifetime of XP on low-end laptops, the end is nigh for the aging OS. That extension makes perfect sense, as recent studies have shown XP is far faster than Vista across a number of platforms. Still, Microsoft is 'sticking to its guns' when it comes to drop-dates for most other uses of the XP operating system. 'There are several dates that apply, but the one you're probably thinking of is the June 30 deadline that Dix referred to. That's the last day when large computer makers -- the Dells, HPs and Lenovos of the world -- will be allowed to preinstall Windows XP on new PCs. It also marks the official end of XP as a retail product.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Microsoft Extends XP For Low-Cost Laptops 388 comments
Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft says it will extend the sales of Windows XP Home to OEMs by several years, but it's not in response to the SaveXP petition. Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops. XP will be available for OEMs until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, whichever date comes later. This greatly extends the earlier XP deadline of June 30 of this year (which was an extension itself), and means XP will potentially be installed on new computers nearly a decade after its original release. The author of the article suggests that the post-June 2008 release of Atom-based laptops encouraged Microsoft to extend XP, even though Intel says Atom can support Vista. Intel also claims that 'Moblin' Linux will be available on Atom-equipped mobile devices starting this summer."
Submission: Testing Shows XP Still Outperforms Vista by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to follow a few links [computerworld.com] in the first link to get to this fine article where they explain that in 2007, XP's share went up in the enterprise. Since we know the end is nigh for Vista as well there seems little motivation to feel this pain.
That's telling, isn't it? And that's actually from Forrester, whose bias is legendary in favor of Redmond.
I should think some Vista evangelists aren't getting their bonuses this year.
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Next generation OS. (Score:5, Funny)
You might have heard of this little thing called GNU/Linux that's been able to do everything XP and Vista can but with far fewer resources. No? Oh well, run your 7 year old OS and wait for Windows 7. The 7 to 7, or 7up should match the Coke classic upgrade very well, complete with a corn syrup obesity epidemic. Where did you want to go yesterday?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was easy (Score:4, Funny)
In a VM or better yet in a Citrix session, silly. That's not a good excuse to run Windows as your base OS.
This wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] should help.
No charge. If you need anything else I'll be here all day.
Parent
great answer (Score:5, Interesting)
>>How do I get those to work?
>This wikipedia link [link to playstation 3] should help.
So your answer on how to get PC games to work on Linux, is to not play PC games? I'm just *not allowed* to play starcraft II when it comes out?
Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. Is your solution for them, that they don't need a computer at all? Or maybe they should put Linux on their computer, and then throw it in the closet and never look at it again?
Blind evangelism isn't helping Linux... it turns people off when they are given bad advice by people with an agenda.
Parent
Depends on perspective.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said there are certain approaches:
-Ignore Linux and gaming. The highly immediately pragmatic stand, probably what you would justify. The question here becomes are you forced up the upgrade trail by Vista? A weaker, yet not currently aggravating stance is to at least boycott Vista and tell microsoft you won't pay, and by extension boycotting games if they make DirectX 10 a requirement, hardware if they fail to provide XP drivers, etc.
-Use Linux and cave if Wine will run the game. Wine runs a surprisingly large number of games (Orange Box a popular example). This, of course, doesn't necessarily send the desired message, but it goes a ways. I have seen software patches and graphics drivers note Wine-specific issues, so some developers are seeing Wine as a valid demographic to target given the effort. This requires being vocal about your mode of usage, or else face game patches screwing up your experience by making Wine-incompatible design choices.
-Use Linux and refuse to buy any non-native games. There are some publishers that released native games. NeverWinter Nights (but not 2), id games, Savage 2. Reward them for publishing quality games for your platform, while being vocal about refusal to buy other titles. There are some decent Free games too, I was surprised how decent Nexuiz was (though I confess the artwork isn't as nice as other games, but the engine seems pretty good at its core).
I'm a hybrid of sorts. I'll check out a demo under wine if the game is overwhelmingly interesting (i.e. orange box) to see if I want it and would risk it, but will be much much more likely to buy a random game with a native linux binary. A lot of my gaming is reserved for console games, but FPS and RTS and the like I feel no console has an adequate interface (though metroid prime on wii was not too shabby). BTW, server-only binaries on linux aren't enough for me. I know it seems like being partly evangelical, but the reality is I want more out of my core platform experience and don't want to be beholden to a single corporate entity. The PC architecture is great for that, with multiple compatible vendors for practically every part except the OS platform, so long as MS is the dominant vendor. Making moves to change that is a good thing for consumers.
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Insightful)
So in the big swap from M$ to Linux there are going to be a lot of delays and a lot of hassles. People will just stretch out the old stale piss (and yo will it get stale) for as long as they can, as they stop investing (throwing away) money into windows.
So basically you stop buying or upgrading applications unless they are Linux variants and you get used to dual booting, windows the toy OS for play and Linux for work and the web. M$ with their consistent lies and customers abuse have forced the situation, Linux didn't create the alternate OS market M$ did.
For the PC games companies, Linux will be a huge bonus, as all the old windows boxen die, all those games will have to be replaced, all the way back to win98, literally a market of hundreds of millions of games.
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Informative)
Your complaints don't make sense. Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or work with spreadsheets, or make a presentation. All of which can be done under Linux.
Same with games. Just because you can't play some specific Windows only game under Linux doesn't make Linux bad. It's like arguing Windows is bad because I can't play a PS3 specific game on it.
Linux isn't Windows. Some of the shit you're used to on Windows isn't going to work under Linux. If you can't deal with that, stop complaining and just use Windows.
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What you're saying is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I'm not being silly (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not asking "How do I use Linux to solve a problem?" He's asking "If I use Linux, how do I still give Microsoft money?" If the question were the former, the question would have been "How do I deal with these .docx documents?" In that case my answer would be to use OO.o to convert them to a standard format, except for the ones that stupidly require vendor specific software. For those you still have to use MSOffice apps to convert them until you can get your contacts to use an interoperable format, and that means probably Citrix.
We don't tolerate people sending us .WP documents or VisiCalc spreadsheets any more, do we? Unless we must, and then we convert them.
For gaming the problem is the same. Game developers are developing on the Windows platform not because DirectX is such a joy to work with or because it's a nice reliably consistent platform. Neither of those things are true. They're doing it because they sell a lot of copies and because they're evangelised to do it. The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.
If he wants to just give Microsoft money for no reason, he can continue to overlicense unused software like most enterprises are doing right now. That's a hearty way to flush some serious cash down the Redmond toilet for no reason if that's what you want to do. As abhorrent as the idea is, it's still better than actually using that stuff.
Parent
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.
WHAT
I thought that Linux fans were also the DIY folks. Saying to people making games "Oh I guess you should start working only on proprietary systems that require either fees or homebrew cracks to get them to work" is madness!
The reason there is a vibrant indie gaming scene is the relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform. Sure if Linux can take over and become the default OS, the indie scene might move over there, but suggesting that in the meantime people should limit their gaming consumption exclusively to proprietary gaming systems is really stupid and counterproductive.
Parent
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Current gen consoles are making progress, weening console gamers into more complex gaming that has been on the pc for years, but its still not anywhere close to the mark.
In short, PC games have a different design process from console games, and your suggestion to use a console for PC gaming is completely and laughably absurd. It contains the same short sighted illogic of your suggestion to use citrix in linux to run an office application. Your only concern seems to be to stop giving microsoft money, with absolutely no concern for the real requirements that were originally provided. In light of these facts, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you work for microsoft.
As a side note: You suggest giving money to Sony instead of Microsoft? Short sighted indeed.
Parent
Re:We're in a technology gap (Score:5, Insightful)
You say gaming will catch up; so your solution doesn't work now, but somewhere in some possible future? You say that eventually people will move to standardized file formats, sometime in this glorious future.
How can you expect people to use a product that you readily admit doesn't suit their needs instead of one that actually does fulfill all the requirements with a few very notable drawbacks? The point is that with this "wrong" solution requirements are being resolved with a trade-off. Your solution doesn't meet their needs now and also has notable trade-offs. Guess which one people will consistently choose?
I still don't understand why you bothered bringing IBM into this to explain why you suggested that instead of giving money to one evil corporation, that getting a PS3 and thus giving money to another evil corporation is better? You're acting like you've got scruples, but it seems they're just blinders. Do you so intensely hate Microsoft that you're willing to allow wrongs done by another corporation corporation slide unnoticed? Once again, a compromise I'm not willing to make for another non-solution.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and I know from first hand experience that a decent sized company [centro.net] can be run almost exclusively on open source software. I've got 3 linux boxes, a gaming pc, and a 360 all sitting on the very same desk. It didn't burst into flames or anything. The point is, I love and support FLOSS, but I hate when people propose it for solutions for which it isn't intended (yet) because when it inevitable goes wrong it hurts the chances of any other FLOSS projects seeing the light of day within these restricted environments. So cut it out, will you?
Parent
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*.
*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez...
Parent
Re:What you're saying is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well he was answering the question "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?" Your issue is with the question, not the fact that he answered it. If the questioner had asked "what can I use for an Office app in Linux" and the responder said run Office 2007 in Citrix, you would have had a point. But he didn't.
How about we're going to run an Exchange server on 2003 but our clients will run Evolution in KDE, or something like that? Does it have to be all or nothing? Oth, what's wrong with having "stop using proprietary software" as a "big picture" goal, that everyone works towards. Just like asking everyone to be frugal and reuse things as much as possible to cut down on overhead, you could also give people incentives to bring in free and open source alternatives to proprietary software you are using, especially if the vendor you are currently using charges fees at every opportunity and does its best to lock you in and prevent you from using it in concert with software from other vendors.
This is what I'm doing at my work. I may never get us completely rid of Windows and other "squeeze-every-last-penny-out-of-you-we-can" type software, but every time I manage slip in a FOSS solution (using Drupal in a LAMP box to create a resource center on the company intranet for example) it's a win for the company, and an overall step in the right direction.
Parent
There are a lot of advantages... (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of advantages to Windows in a VM.
Windows XP is still available. You can stock up on enough copies to meet your VM needs.
You can keep an activated VM to roll back to when your Windows VM becomes corrupted, as all of them do, with less trouble than imaging a real machine.
It doesn't have access to your real hardware unless you let it.
That Vista isn't pleasant in a VM is a good reason to avoid it. In case you haven't heard, avoiding it looks more and more likely these days. If you're doing development and have to test on Vista then you're already using it in a VM or you're stupid.
In many cases, XP runs better in a VM than it does natively. Imagine that.
When it's time to retire it, you can drag the XP VM to the trashcan where it belongs.
Keeping the status quo is not an option. Microsoft is forcing the migration whether you want it or not. The question is, since you're being forced to migrate would you prefer to not be forced next time? If so, then where you should migrate to [distrowatch.com] should be obvious.
The idea of XP in a VM or in Citrix is to smooth the migration to an open system where control of your IT is up to you, not to a corporation with a profit motive to keep shuffling you along the upgrade path and tying down your options and artificially limiting your choices.
Keep saying "we can't" and eventually you will believe it.
Parent
Re:What you're saying is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it.
As far as I know Office 2007 runs just fine in XP. If it doesn't, run Office 2003. Or OpenOffice.org. Or run Office 2007 on a Vista box if you just have to.
But don't tell me it's Office 2007 and VS 2008 or nothing. For most users that's not the case. If you need it, spend the money on it and be happy.
Parent
Let me lead with... (Score:4, Interesting)
You guys aren't getting any traction in this thread and your best bet is to ignore it. You won't, but at least I told you so.
The vagaries of licensing are some of the things that make open solutions so much more inviting. If you discontinue your support contracts, you don't get any more support from your open source provider. The don't sue you for continuing to experience the benefits of the support you've already paid for.
And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan.
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a developer and you need a full-blown IDE you may need to run VisualStudio and XP or Vista on the machine you use for development. Same if you're a graphics artist. You might have to spend $600.00 or whatever it is to get Photoshop, and get used to the idea that you'll have to run it in Vista whether you want it or not.
But that's not most people. Most people's needs are actually better met with FOSS projects if they are mature enough (just like proprietary software) and have a healthy community of users and developers supporting them.
If you are a pro, or a serious amateur, it may be worth your the investment to buy Photoshop, even if you have to purchase a machine dedicated to the task of using it. But if you have a cubicle farm full of people using email, a word processor and an accounting package and maybe sharing printers and doing some simple file sharing, you can do that all very efficiently with Linux. Spend the money on the departments that may need an expensive piece of proprietary software - and the hardware required to run it. But don't assume it is the only solution, or even the best solution, especially for departments (and users) with more modest needs.
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Insightful)
you trailed off before you came up with a suitable alternative to VisualStudio
What about Photoshop?
I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of features which prevent you from using free alternatives. ("a fully-featured graphics editor? that's no use; it doesn't support CMYK natively")
I'm sure that no matter what the free software world provides for you, you'll be able to find some fault with it.
And that's fine. You can stick with your current supplier and hope that it all works out okay.
This article is about their next-generation OS being unusable though, and about the end-of-life for the OS which everyone uses. Still feel confident about keeping all your computing tasks tied to that supplier?
The answer isn't to respond to every offer of free software with "well it doesn't do x, therefore I'll pour scorn on its authors and remain with a homogenous Microsoft solution to everything". A more sensible approach would be to start moving what you can to free platforms while you still have a chance.
Parent
Eclipse (Score:5, Insightful)
Until they sell out the rest of the way Eclipse makes a nice development platform to replace Visual Studio. If they do sell out there will be a fork. You'll find that if Eclipse isn't included in your distribution you'll find it in the Applications installer. All linux users can develop applications on day one if they want to. They don't have to, but since it's built by developers they served their own needs first. It turns out programming is not some occult science after all.
As for J#, C#, VB and WebDev, we're back to the same "How do I keep giving Microsoft money" question again. Those are not standards. They're proprietary solutions and stuff you build on them will obsolete every time Microsoft decides it needs more of your money. It's a trap. Don't fall into it. If you must program in those soon-to-be dead languages then you've created your own predicament and nobody can help you.
Photoshop? Enough with the photoshop. I don't care about photoshop. If you need a dedicated photoshop box it's no excuse to chain everyone in your enterprise to Windows when it's only you that is determined to suffer.
3d? You have to be frimping kidding. You don't really think Windows is a cutting edge 3d platform do you? On what planet?
Parent
Re:That was easy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
As in "the death was ruled a suicide after the victim died from three self-inflicted gunshots to the head."
Parent
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not on the eee [slashdot.org] they don't. Nor under any of the 50 low cost MIDs and mini notebook pc's [moblin.org] coming out in the next few months. For the two pound laptop with six hours of battery life Vista is dead on arrival.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. All the way up at 14% after a year and a half with under a year to go before the next version is out [slashdot.org]? That means it's going to peak at something under 30%. Sure, they sold lots of licenses nobody is using. They made Billions doing that. I hope that's not the kind of trick you can get people to fall for over and over. I wish I knew it for sure.
Parent
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
10% plus in one year. Now, how often does the average computer user change his hardware? Every 3-5 years. So, assuming that he also gets a new system when he gets a new machine (which is the norm for those buying computers preassembled rather than building them on their own), this should be reflected by at the very least 20% increase in Vista userbase, because 1/5 of the people should have replaced their machines (assuming a 5 year cycle).
Essentially, what this 10% increase means is, that about half of the people who got new hardware also got Vista to it, and nobody switched "mid-life" for their hardware.
Personally, I'm not impressed.
Parent
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT it grows is a given. It's the new OS from MS. Anything but a growth in market share would be a complete and utter desaster for MS. Interesting is which OSs Vista takes market shares from. You'll notice that it gains about as much from 2k users as it does from XP (with "alternative" systems staying pretty much stable). It seems that at least half of the "early adopters" had to, since the support for 2k has died, and they went for Vista, skipping XP altogether.
Also, please take note what this statistic measures. It counts the machines that connect to that certain page via the internet. So I would probably be counted as a Windows XP machine, even though this is only a virtual machine running on linux. We're also not counting any servers here. Else I'd say that MS is really, really in big doodoo, considering that according to that statistic, more than twice as many Macs or Linux machines are running than 2003 servers.
Makes sense for the W3Schools, since they are mainly concerned with the question which machines access webpages on the net (and even more so, what browser they use). But taking this as a measurement for the amount of machines on certain OSs doesn't hold enough water to make me a cup of Java.
Parent
two words (Score:5, Funny)
Activation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Activation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
What's more (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, as you noted, it isn't as though there hasn't been some time. Vista has been on the open market for over a year now, and MS told their developers at Beta 2 that all the driver interfaces were stable. That's a lot of time to have developed a new driver. If you still haven't, well I have trouble feeling that it is MS's fault. If you can't learn the new (very well documented) interfaces in a year's time, well then there is something wrong on your end.
Computers change, that is simply a fact of life. If you can't deal with that, then you are in teh wrong business. You can't expect to release something and not have to change it for 30 years. Interfaces (serial, USB, firewire, etc) will change, buses (PCI, PCIe) will change. OSes will change. You are going to have to update to support those.
When Vista first came out, I told people to lay off the hardware companies. It takes time to build a stable driver on new architecture, especially the video card companies who had some really massive changes. Now, I don't defend the hardware companies at all. You've had a year, and just about everyone does have a stable, tested driver out. If you still can't, well that is your problem, not MS's.
Parent
Let it die (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?
Anyway, there we go. I'm sure there are a thousand valid reasons why this couldn't/wouldn't work and naturally it will never happen. I understand that. I can dream though, can't I?
XP won't die (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
History repeats itself... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/15/0035209 [slashdot.org]
Re:History repeats itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
But usually, the general audience and especially companies accepted the new system. It offered more ease of use, easier integration of peripherals, looked nicer and so on. Vista is different, though. Yes, it looks nicer. But people started to catch on. They noticed that the final version for an MS product is sporting an "SP2" sticker next to it. They got what they want in XP. They heard that this or that hardware doesn't work in Vista anymore. But the biggest problem is what we (geeks) have been lamenting for years now, and which backfired when MS started to take it serious: Security. UAC is one of the things that is very high on the annoyances list of the average user.
This is the difference this time. It's not only the geeks who turn their noses at the new MS-OS. It's a general sentiment. And even OEM manufacturers are pressing MS for prolongued support for XP, since they saw the demand for machines with an "old" OS. Tells you something. Because geeks are certainly no important market segment. Yes, we buy more soft- and hardware than the average guy (ok, at least hardware, since the real, pure geek won't touch anything but OSS... yeah, yeah), but we're few compared to the masses buying PCs these days. And we're picky, and we're not easily turned away when something doesn't work out, we're not really an interesting customer group. Certainly we're not the core customers for Dell or HP. And these companies exactly demanded and pressed for longer OEM sales of XP.
So the rejection of Vista isn't the geek phenomenon that it usually is. It's a much, much broader reaction this time.
Parent
Vista issues for gamers and laptops (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider:
1. Drivers. There's no reason Vista can't be made compatible with XP's faster video drivers, except that Microsoft is being stubborn.
2. 64 bit support. Microsoft has willfully hamstrung Vista 64 by not providing compatibility with 32 bit drivers, and by making the Vista 64 driver model more restrictive than the Vista 32 bit. If you look at Apple's systems, they have a much better model where 32 bit drivers work *fine* on a 64 bit system. There's no reason your video card driver needs to be 64 bit anyway...
3. Background tasks. Here's a hint: Let us easily turn them the fuck off. There should be some kind of Windows performance control panel that provides a central place to switch off file indexing, and the endless other miscellaneous tasks that spin the drive on Vista *constantly*.
Until those issues are addressed, it's stupid to expect gamers who need good graphics drivers, and laptop users who can't have the spinning harddrive wearing down the battery constantly to take a second look at Vista.
I gave Vista a good 6 months, and really did appreciate things like not having to run as administrator constantly. I felt much more secure running with lower privileges user like I do on my Ubuntu and OSX installs. However, dispite the fact that I tweaked the hell out of my system (including turning off file indexing and switching off aero in favor of the win2k look), and the fact that my system *should* be ridiculously overpowered by looking at the hardware specs, the background services made my system run like a *dog*.
I've switched back to XP, and it is like night and day. Suddenly, my machine no longer locks up doing some stupid task in the background. Suddenly, the stutter is gone from my games. Suddenly, everything is snappier.
What's more, I now actually get to run with file indexing ON, by using the google desktop. This gives me all of the same search functionality as I got on vista, but with no noticeable performance overhead. Hell, I could probably start running as a non admin user on XP, now that applications have finally been forced to learn to live with reduced permissions for Vista compatibility...
64-bit Windows NT cannot have 32-bit drivers. (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT makes the fundamental assumption that kernel mode programs have direct access to user-mode memory. The kernel is in the same address space as user-mode programs. Kernel drivers can directly read user-mode parameters from the same address that was passed in from user mode. This offloads parameter checking from software to the CPU's page table, a nice performance increase.
This prevents 32-bit drivers from ever being possible in NT. A 64-bit user program would pass in a 64-bit pointer in an ioctl and a 32-bit driver would have no way of accessing that address. The kernel can't translate because it does not know what ioctls mean, and they can contain pointers.
In contrast, Darwin's kernel has a separate address space for user mode and kernel mode. Switching between user mode and kernel mode is a full page table reload, and access to user memory from the kernel is done through special accessor functions. This is a additional cost to kernel calls in Darwin compared to NT.
As for video card drivers not needing to be 64-bit... The extra 8 general and 8 SSE registers do help in the inner loops written in assembly language for some operations that the cards don't support directly.
By the way, have you heard of Windows XP x64 Edition?
Parent
Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Who cares about what they say in the press? (Score:4, Informative)
One big reason companies aren't buying (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista in all of its flavors requires activation either at the mothership, or via an activation server on your network.
This one requirement, has ZERO benefit for the end user. Microsoft made this mandatory to close the "Volume License Key loophole" that allowed corporate copies of XP to be widely and easily pirated.
Now the anti-piracy cost falls to the end user. Corporations that deploy standard images must now manage the activation process in addition to all the other things that make a Microsoft network tick. There are a million ways that activation causes problems - remote users, computer rental companies that re-image after every use, schools that re-image labs frequently...etc.
I don't see Microsoft "fixing" this problem ever.
-ted
Reality check (Score:4, Informative)
CPU benchmarks:
XP with SP3: 2053
Vista with SP1 Aero disabled: 2018 (change: -1.7%)
Vista with SP1: 1994 (change: -2.8%)
So, basically, your machine will be imperceptibly slower if you want all the whiz-bang 3D and transparency of Vista's UI. Go figure.
Other results from the linked article:
- XP boots about 30 seconds faster.
- Vista copies a large file about 30 seconds faster.
- XP might run faster on machines with 256 MB of RAM. Obviously a huge concern with memory costing about $20 per GB.
I don't mean to challenge anyone's world-view, but the people I know who run Vista are quite happy with it. That includes my wife, who runs Vista Home and Office 2007 on her 6 year old laptop with half a gig of RAM.Re:Has NetCraft confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
Lovecraft confirms it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely someone as open-minded, intelligent and non-biased such as yourself must stand back and admit that it must be doing SOMETHING right in order to maintain that lead, as well as for so many people to kick up a fuss now that it looks like it's going to be killed off.
Surely, I mean surely in the near-25-years that Microsoft has been developing w