Vista is a bloated pig
-
We've all suspected that Vista is a bloated pig, but it's still shocking to see hard facts that justify that suspicion: ...if you start with a basic Windows Vista Business (SP1) installation, you are looking at a workload consisting of nearly 600 threads spread across some 60+ processes.... By contrast, a default Windows XP Professional installation spawns just over 300 threads across roughly 40 processes.... even stripped bare and with all the extraneous UI fluff disabled, Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script when running against an identically configured Windows XP system.... Bottom Line: The idea that Vista's problems are entirely isolated to User Mode is pure rubbish. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft notice this stuff? Obviously other people do - maybe that's why their stock keeps falling. More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
I genuinely believe they stopped caring. They have the mind set of "If we dish it out, they'll eat it". I'm not sure if this started off with Ballmer taking control, but to me, that's the state they are in.
-
We've all suspected that Vista is a bloated pig, but it's still shocking to see hard facts that justify that suspicion: ...if you start with a basic Windows Vista Business (SP1) installation, you are looking at a workload consisting of nearly 600 threads spread across some 60+ processes.... By contrast, a default Windows XP Professional installation spawns just over 300 threads across roughly 40 processes.... even stripped bare and with all the extraneous UI fluff disabled, Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script when running against an identically configured Windows XP system.... Bottom Line: The idea that Vista's problems are entirely isolated to User Mode is pure rubbish. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft notice this stuff? Obviously other people do - maybe that's why their stock keeps falling. More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
I disagree with such comparison. It is like saying Windows 98 had only 50 threads across 20 processes while Windows XP has 300 thread across 40 process hence Windows XP is bloated. -Saurabh
-
I disagree with such comparison. It is like saying Windows 98 had only 50 threads across 20 processes while Windows XP has 300 thread across 40 process hence Windows XP is bloated. -Saurabh
I tend to agree there. In that vein, every new thing that does more than the previous model is bloated. Microsoft is doing no more than taking advantage of the latest HW that is available. What's wrong with that. Intel and AMD keep coming up with faster chips and other companies are making memory and other components cheaper so the SW companies keep writing software that makes use of the new resources. Innovation has to happen at some point and if Microsoft was not doing it someone would step in to fill the void. As has been pointed out to me in the past, if you think innovation is purely driven by need you are mistaken. Now, the fact that I hate is that I don't think MS Has ever gotten their OS down to just a handful of defects before doing the next new thing. Innovation is one thing. Abandoning a product before you have it working is another. I do not think that I should have to be made to upgrade unless I want to. Yes, if I choose to stay behind I start to miss out on the new OS specific features, but I should be able to stay at the OS I want for as long as I can, sans any patches and such after the EOL statement, but then they should have gotten it right long before that :)
-
We've all suspected that Vista is a bloated pig, but it's still shocking to see hard facts that justify that suspicion: ...if you start with a basic Windows Vista Business (SP1) installation, you are looking at a workload consisting of nearly 600 threads spread across some 60+ processes.... By contrast, a default Windows XP Professional installation spawns just over 300 threads across roughly 40 processes.... even stripped bare and with all the extraneous UI fluff disabled, Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script when running against an identically configured Windows XP system.... Bottom Line: The idea that Vista's problems are entirely isolated to User Mode is pure rubbish. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft notice this stuff? Obviously other people do - maybe that's why their stock keeps falling. More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Call me a fanbois but I think it's mostly that MS is so big that it's just an easy target. I find Vista all right. If people aren't matching the OS with the recommended hardware, I think that is their problem.
---------------------------------------------------------- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
-
I tend to agree there. In that vein, every new thing that does more than the previous model is bloated. Microsoft is doing no more than taking advantage of the latest HW that is available. What's wrong with that. Intel and AMD keep coming up with faster chips and other companies are making memory and other components cheaper so the SW companies keep writing software that makes use of the new resources. Innovation has to happen at some point and if Microsoft was not doing it someone would step in to fill the void. As has been pointed out to me in the past, if you think innovation is purely driven by need you are mistaken. Now, the fact that I hate is that I don't think MS Has ever gotten their OS down to just a handful of defects before doing the next new thing. Innovation is one thing. Abandoning a product before you have it working is another. I do not think that I should have to be made to upgrade unless I want to. Yes, if I choose to stay behind I start to miss out on the new OS specific features, but I should be able to stay at the OS I want for as long as I can, sans any patches and such after the EOL statement, but then they should have gotten it right long before that :)
Ray Cassick wrote:
Microsoft is doing no more than taking advantage of the latest HW that is available.
I agree. But that can flip progress into regress when they stretch too much. It all comes down to overall user experience. When basic things like file copy take more time in Vista running on a dual core than on Win95 running on a Pentium 1, you start loosing it.
-
Call me a fanbois but I think it's mostly that MS is so big that it's just an easy target. I find Vista all right. If people aren't matching the OS with the recommended hardware, I think that is their problem.
---------------------------------------------------------- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Kissing Microsoft's ass here at CP won't do you much good - you're gonna have to find a forum actually run by Microsoft to realize any potential benefit.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
We've all suspected that Vista is a bloated pig, but it's still shocking to see hard facts that justify that suspicion: ...if you start with a basic Windows Vista Business (SP1) installation, you are looking at a workload consisting of nearly 600 threads spread across some 60+ processes.... By contrast, a default Windows XP Professional installation spawns just over 300 threads across roughly 40 processes.... even stripped bare and with all the extraneous UI fluff disabled, Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script when running against an identically configured Windows XP system.... Bottom Line: The idea that Vista's problems are entirely isolated to User Mode is pure rubbish. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft notice this stuff? Obviously other people do - maybe that's why their stock keeps falling. More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
always has
-
Kissing Microsoft's ass here at CP won't do you much good - you're gonna have to find a forum actually run by Microsoft to realize any potential benefit.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001:laugh:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
We've all suspected that Vista is a bloated pig, but it's still shocking to see hard facts that justify that suspicion: ...if you start with a basic Windows Vista Business (SP1) installation, you are looking at a workload consisting of nearly 600 threads spread across some 60+ processes.... By contrast, a default Windows XP Professional installation spawns just over 300 threads across roughly 40 processes.... even stripped bare and with all the extraneous UI fluff disabled, Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script when running against an identically configured Windows XP system.... Bottom Line: The idea that Vista's problems are entirely isolated to User Mode is pure rubbish. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft notice this stuff? Obviously other people do - maybe that's why their stock keeps falling. More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
I call this article pure rubbish. And it appears over and over again. Number of threads is meaningless as the whole article. [Update]What's next "benchmark"? Number of files in Windows directory?
-
I call this article pure rubbish. And it appears over and over again. Number of threads is meaningless as the whole article. [Update]What's next "benchmark"? Number of files in Windows directory?
-
Call me a fanbois but I think it's mostly that MS is so big that it's just an easy target. I find Vista all right. If people aren't matching the OS with the recommended hardware, I think that is their problem.
---------------------------------------------------------- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
swjam wrote:
Call me a fanbois
You are a fanbois!
-
Kissing Microsoft's ass here at CP won't do you much good - you're gonna have to find a forum actually run by Microsoft to realize any potential benefit.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Ray Cassick wrote:
Microsoft is doing no more than taking advantage of the latest HW that is available.
I agree. But that can flip progress into regress when they stretch too much. It all comes down to overall user experience. When basic things like file copy take more time in Vista running on a dual core than on Win95 running on a Pentium 1, you start loosing it.
I can agree there a bit. Companies do often just look at the hardware and say 'wow, I can really push this stuff' without looking at the real value that the new fancy stuff adds. The ballence though is looking at the new hardware that people will buy and making use of it just enough to make them feel that the added expense was worth it but not to push it so far that the new hardware starts to quickly feel as slow or worse as the older hardware was. It should all be about perceived value and quite often I think that gets missed somewhere between the idea and the implementation.
-
What about "Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script"? Is that meaningless too?
Yes and 87% of people think I'm right. Satisfied now?
-
What about "Vista still takes 40% longer to execute the OfficeBench test script"? Is that meaningless too?
I call BS on that, with adequate hardware I've yet to find an app that didn't run faster on Vista than XP on identical hardware given time for Vista's caching mechanisms to kick in which is what I think most reviewers with an axe to grind purposefully do *not* do.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
