Microsoft Dev Explains Why Windows is Slower than Linux - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Van-man;40610439]Or in other words "I don't have any experience with alternatives and/or are afraid of changes"[/QUOTE] Or maybe because someone likes the way something is and would rather not fix what isn't broken? Y'know, that same reason people diss Win8 all the time? It's rich you claim someone's afraid of change and has no experience when a large majority of PC users are bitching and moaning about Win8 for precisely that reason and yet half of the bastards who claim Metro is "objectively inferior" probably haven't even touched the damn thing. At least Metro still has the classic Windows shell underneath; you gotta completely relearn Linux from scratch if you don't choose the "right one"... and good luck figuring out what the "right one" is on your first try. I ain't gonna waste my time on finding the most comfortable new chair to get when my current chair is already super-cushy even if it's a little rickety. Say what you want about the underlying OS, but the Windows shell? It [i]works.[/i] Especially with the Win7-introduced superbar. I hate to sound like a Mactard, but... I mean seriously. Windows [i]works.[/i] Its GUI makes sense for the most part and as of Win7 it's been it's a dream to use. Linux works better underneath? I grant that. I wish Windows would step up its own underlying architecture. But Linux for the most part is a completely arcane thing to use unless you're specifically acclimated to it. And hell, even on Windows I can write myself a batch file if I really want that kind of control, and then put it on my desktop to use in a click.

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;40610561]linux is a hassle to use[/QUOTE] Really depends on the person using it. Yet again, using myself as an example, I find linux to run more fluent than windows. I get things done faster in linux than I do in windows. Here I can write down the commands and it'll be done in the matter of seconds. In Windows, I'll have to go through menu after menu to find what I'm looking for.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;40610243]Please elaborate on what you mean by `complete`? Ive always thought many Linux distro's to be more complete and functional than default Windows.[/QUOTE] Linux has mostly refused my attempts to use it, so forgive any misinformation I have concerning it. I know Windows well though. 64-bit Windows versions ship with a gigabyte's worth of compatibility libraries to run 32-bit binaries on the 64-bit architecture. On Linux this is generally not an issue as you can usually find things compiled for your architecture specifically (or the standard approach is to compile them yourselves, like on Gentoo). Therefore such libraries are usually not required, and not included in most distros. By default, Windows has an absolutely massive array of services installed and running. It includes standard stuff that's also found in Linux distros such as NTPd, audio stuff, inter-process communication, firewall, etc. But there's also a lot of stuff that requires low-level access to the system, that has a lot of use, but that's not necessarily useful for everyone. Stuff like parental controls, remote control servers and smart card support. On Linux, installing these is relatively easy. It might require some conffing, but that's expected. On Windows, securely implementing them, and ensuring that installations are performed correctly, essentially means that they must be shipped with the OS. That's mostly what I mean by a complete system.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610580]Or maybe because someone likes the way something is and would rather not fix what isn't broken? Y'know, that same reason people diss Win8 all the time? It's rich you claim someone's afraid of change and has no experience when a large majority of PC users are bitching and moaning about Win8 for precisely that reason and yet half of the bastards who claim Metro is "objectively inferior" probably haven't even touched the damn thing. At least Metro still has the classic Windows shell underneath; you gotta completely relearn Linux from scratch.[/QUOTE] I have used Windows 8 and I don't like it on desktops (personal opinion), but I find it great for tablet PCs.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;40610530]More like "I don't want to sacrifice my familiarity and games compatibility to gain some small performance boosts which barely effect me as a home user"[/QUOTE] Not only does it have big performance boosts that you may not even notice unless your using high performance applications but it is also very secure. I don't even feel comfortable anymore using Windows for anything important such as banking; I boot into Ubuntu or Arch for that.

Its rather a shame that its come to this in Microsoft's domain, more or less for the rest of the tech industry in general besides the hardy giants like Google, etc. Most prominently with Vista, and then with other software. Economically it [I]is[/I] cheaper to buy new hardware compared to optimizing/streamlining/speed-testing code. However its a Computer Science 101 paramount on optimization... ([URL="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/12/hardware-is-cheap-programmers-are-expensive.html"]This for example[/URL]) I guess management has really just fell into the toilet

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;40610550]Because I'm obviously just a mongoloid for not sharing your opinion, right? And I've obviously never worked with an alternative before, despite assisting in setting up a Linux print server for my high school.[/QUOTE] Sums up a lot of the ridiculous linux fanboys on this forum. Most of them assume that if you're not using linux, it's because you have some deep undying love for microsoft or you're afraid of change. In reality, lots of us use linux for other things from servers to router distros, but we just don't want to use it on our desktop. I'd be totally fine with linux becoming the dominant OS, but I'd also like there to be alternatives.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;40610243]Please elaborate on what you mean by `complete`? Ive always thought many Linux distro's to be more complete and functional than default Windows.[/QUOTE] Windows comes with a lot of stuff that Linux doesn't really have to worry about, abstrations of earlier version of the Win API, compatibility for applications dating back to the 90's, a fair number of built in applications and systems to give users a start. There is a lot of crap lying around in the Windows folders. Linux provides basic UNIX style tools, terminal, and generic drivers. Some distros can get their size up by providing basic productivity and media things (Ubuntu is getting pretty big now), but because Linux itself doesn't have heaps of old systems lying around for compatibility, it's massively smaller. Also I can see MS falling into the same problem they had a few years ago. Applications relied on a certain broken part of the Win API, when they got around to fixing it, these programs broke, so the error had to be added back in a support layer to enable these programs to function again. I can't find the exact thing anymore, but the closest I got was programs relying on the Win95 heap manager not working quite as expected, leading to newer versions needing a heap manager that both worked correctly, and accounted for programs relying on the error to function.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;40610592][..] But there's also a lot of stuff that requires low-level access to the system, that has a lot of use, but that's not necessarily useful for everyone. Stuff like parental controls, remote control servers and smart card support. On Linux, installing these is relatively easy. It might require some conffing, but that's expected. On Windows, securely implementing them, and ensuring that installations are performed correctly, essentially means that they must be shipped with the OS. That's mostly what I mean by a complete system.[/QUOTE] Not to mention that since Windows is a rather large target for security threats, they have to code up these abstraction layers to increase security. Were as Linux is rather open, instead of having to use a Windows API, you can go down to dev/input and read say a USB device as a file object.

[QUOTE=Elspin;40610635]I'd be totally fine with linux becoming the dominant OS, but I'd also like there to be alternatives.[/QUOTE] PC-BSD :v:

[QUOTE=Atlascore;40610649]If by developers you mean Valve and some random indie game devs, sure. PC gamers prefer linux? Bullshit, most PC gamers use Windows or Mac.[/QUOTE] Poorly worded of me. What I tried to say is that the focus on linux is becoming bigger, especially this last year. Indie developers are now moving onto linux and a big company, Valve, is also starting to get their ass into the linux scene. People will probably be influenced by especially Valve and might start developing for Linux as well. A lot is probably exagerated. In my eyes, more and more people are starting to prefer Linux. Only thing holding them back is the lack of game support and stuff like photoshop etc. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] It's pure speculation from my side. I do believe that Linux will become bigger the next years, however.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;40610661]PC-BSD :v:[/QUOTE] While we're mentioning obscure operating systems, how about [url=http://www.minix3.org/]Minix[/url], the OS that Linux was originally written on and partially inspired by? [thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X2ioUByVKuc/T2orVzr0PbI/AAAAAAAADpg/ljd54mXb1nc/s1600/1.png[/thumb]

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610478]The big problem is that while we can understand that, it's completely cryptic to a layperson. Normal users don't want to learn what is essentially a new language to do tasks like that when they can go into Windows Update and tell it to update stuff by clicking a button (or checking things off on a list if they wanna be specific.) You really need to put as much stuff into a GUI as possible for normal users. It's ease of use. Even among us who know our way around a computer, it's just... that much more brainless. Terminals are great for giving experts the control they want, but I don't want to learn [i]any[/i] commands if I don't need to. Even when juking around in my system, I'd rather go to the Computer Management utility than open a command prompt, know what I mean?[/QUOTE] If you had been paying any attention, you would have noticed we were talking about how we found using the terminal to be faster than a UI tool, not that everybody should deal with it and just learn how to use the terminal. There are plenty of graphical tools for doing this job under Linux so your entire post is fairly moot.

2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop! [I]*ducks and runs*[/I]

[QUOTE=PredGD;40610697]Poorly worded of me. What I tried to say is that the focus on linux is becoming bigger, especially this last year. Indie developers are now moving onto linux and a big company, Valve, is also starting to get their ass into the linux scene. People will probably be influenced by especially Valve and might start developing for Linux as well. A lot is probably exagerated. In my eyes, more and more people are starting to prefer Linux. Only thing holding them back is the lack of game support and stuff like photoshop etc. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] It's pure speculation from my side. I do believe that Linux will become bigger the next years, however.[/QUOTE] I won't deny it obviously growing bigger, especially with large coverage from Valve and thus causing an influx of news articles from practically every gaming journalism site in the cosmos, but I wouldn't say it would overtake Windows soon. It is a much more daunting OS for the common person, and even then not everybody will make the switch. It will become sort of like consoles have in terms of exclusivity. There will be games available on some OSes but not others, resulting in CATASTROPHIC MELTDOWNS. Ok, maybe not that drastic, but you get the point. I suppose this is sort of remedied by dual-booting, but that may be a bit tricky for people strapped for the cash to do such things.

[QUOTE=Elspin;40610635]Sums up a lot of the ridiculous linux fanboys on this forum. Most of them assume that if you're not using linux, it's because you have some deep undying love for microsoft or you're afraid of change. In reality, lots of us use linux for other things from servers to router distros, but we just don't want to use it on our desktop. I'd be totally fine with linux becoming the dominant OS, but I'd also like there to be alternatives.[/QUOTE] There are also a lot of people who post assuming that desktop linux involves using the terminal all the time when it doesn't, there's a lot of missinformation about and it's hard to tell what someone does and doesn't already know. Though a little more humility wouldn't be too bad, asking about past experience isn't going to hurt. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Fish_poke;40610773]I won't deny it obviously growing bigger, especially with large coverage from Valve and thus causing an influx of news articles from practically every gaming journalism site in the cosmos, but I wouldn't say it would overtake Windows soon. It is a much more daunting OS for the common person, and even then not everybody will make the switch. It will become sort of like consoles have in terms of exclusivity. There will be games available on some OSes but not others, resulting in CATASTROPHIC MELTDOWNS. Ok, maybe not that drastic, but you get the point. I suppose this is sort of remedied by dual-booting, but that may be a bit tricky for people strapped for the cash to do such things.[/QUOTE] Linux has a higher chance of overtaking OS X than Windows, OS X still has a market near the same order of magnitude so they're much more likely to be compared (though in a better world, I think OS X and Linux would increase marketshare).

Linux is more user friendly than people think. As danharibo said, a lot of things can be done without the terminal. Most applications which people frequently use (gimp, vlc, media stuff, etc etc) can be found in the Software Centers for a lot of distros (think of the Play Store or App Store).

[QUOTE=danharibo;40610781]There are also a lot of people who post assuming that desktop linux involves using the terminal all the time when it doesn't, there's a lot of missinformation about and it's hard to tell what someone does and doesn't already know. Though a little more humility wouldn't be too bad, asking about past experience isn't going to hurt.[/QUOTE] Admittedly a lot of DE's need a fucking ton more polish, but its getting there!

Another thing I don't get. I get that Linux is open and that's a big plus, but even with stuff like OS X people are always pegging the Unix family as better than NT. What's so great about Unix? It's not even like Unix and NT are the only OS "bases" around; there are still OSes based on neither of them. We still have stuff like Amiga floating around. Is it just because Unix is the most commonly open-source OS type? I mean, hell, even NT is open-source with stuff like ReachOS having reverse-engineered a lot of Windows' "bones."

[QUOTE=danharibo;40610781]There are also a lot of people who post assuming that desktop linux involves using the terminal all the time when it doesn't, there's a lot of missinformation about and it's hard to tell what someone does and doesn't already know. Though a little more humility wouldn't be too bad, asking about past experience isn't going to hurt.[/QUOTE] Considering a lot of the typical responses from people who are trying to proselytize linux are aggressive and insulting, I don't expect anyone to really be properly informed.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610809]Another thing I don't get. I get that Linux is open and that's a big plus, but even with stuff like OS X people are always pegging the Unix family as better than NT. What's so great about Unix? It's not even like Unix and NT are the only OS "bases" around; there are still OSes based on neither of them. We still have stuff like Amiga floating around. Is it just because Unix is the most commonly open-source OS type? I mean, hell, even NT is open-source with stuff like ReachOS having reverse-engineered a lot of Windows' "bones."[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what reasons other people have, but generally I find that *nix OSes have much better terminals and shells (and options in that area), as well as much better developer support (valgrind has my back). I also find them a lot simpler, it's easier for me to figure out why Linux isn't working than Windows (e.g. Linux stops booting I can probably fix it myself, Windows stops booting and I'm reaching for the install disk.).

[QUOTE=danharibo;40610781]There are also a lot of people who post assuming that desktop linux involves using the terminal all the time when it doesn't, there's a lot of missinformation about and it's hard to tell what someone does and doesn't already know. Though a little more humility wouldn't be too bad, asking about past experience isn't going to hurt. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] Linux has a higher chance of overtaking OS X than Windows, OS X still has a market near the same order of magnitude so they're much more likely to be compared (though in a better world, I think OS X and Linux would increase marketshare).[/QUOTE] Yeah, I wouldn't doubt Linux overtaking OSX sometime within the decade at all, really.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40610812]Considering a lot of the typical responses from people who are trying to proselytize linux are aggressive and insulting, I don't expect anyone to really be properly informed.[/QUOTE] Like I said, both 'sides' need to take a breather and figure out what the person in question is after.

[QUOTE=danharibo;40610781]There are also a lot of people who post assuming that desktop linux involves using the terminal all the time when it doesn't, there's a lot of missinformation about and it's hard to tell what someone does and doesn't already know. Though a little more humility wouldn't be too bad, asking about past experience isn't going to hurt. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] Linux has a higher chance of overtaking OS X than Windows, OS X still has a market near the same order of magnitude so they're much more likely to be compared (though in a better world, I think OS X and Linux would increase marketshare).[/QUOTE] I would much rather it be Linux and Windows than Linux and OS X, to be honest. I greatly dislike Apple's business practices and I don't honestly think Mac particularly has anything that Windows doesn't. In any case, while it's true some people are also pretty ignorant about Linux, the people defending it randomly insulting people is not going to help it become more mainstream. What Linux needs to become more successful is developer support, and friendlier UI - not morons insulting people for liking Windows.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610809]Another thing I don't get. I get that Linux is open and that's a big plus, but even with stuff like OS X people are always pegging the Unix family as better than NT. What's so great about Unix? It's not even like Unix and NT are the only OS "bases" around; there are still OSes based on neither of them. We still have stuff like Amiga floating around. Is it just because Unix is the most commonly open-source OS type? I mean, hell, even NT is open-source with stuff like ReachOS having reverse-engineered a lot of Windows' "bones."[/QUOTE] Modularity, extensibility and portability are all huge plusses. Plus UNIX pipes and program design philosophies are great. Also root is a godsend compared to the crippled admin functionality on windows, especially when SYSTEM decides it owns a file and you can't delete it.

[QUOTE=danharibo;40610758]If you had been paying any attention, you would have noticed we were talking about how we found using the terminal to be faster than a UI tool, not that everybody should deal with it and just learn how to use the terminal. There are plenty of graphical tools for doing this job under Linux so your entire post is fairly moot.[/QUOTE] I [i]was[/i] paying attention. You brought it up in the first place because someone had called Mint "daunting." Certainly didn't sound like you were just saying you found it to be faster. Sounded like you were indeed trying to convince them of something.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610863]I [i]was[/i] paying attention. You brought it up in the first place because someone had called Mint "daunting." Certainly didn't sound like you were just saying you found it to be faster. Sounded like you were indeed trying to convince them of something.[/QUOTE] I said I found it faster, while my post was in resposne to someone it would be read by more than just them.

[QUOTE=SGI Onyx;40610844]Modularity, extensibility and portability are all huge plusses. Plus UNIX pipes and program design philosophies are great. Also root is a godsend compared to the crippled admin functionality on windows, especially when SYSTEM decides it owns a file and you can't delete it.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the fabled "Unix philosophy." There are good bits of it, but I personally don't consider it to be a be-all-end-all to design.

Windows has been a dying OS for quite a while, they just really can't compete with Linux in terms of code quality and the sheer amount of developers, I can't really see it getting any better in the future as it would take an enormous amount of work and money to modernize code that in parts dates back to the ms-dos era.. Mac OS X has a much greater advantage over Windows what with the kernel being much more modern and also opensource so I don't see them having any such problem. I've switched most of my computers to Linux as it's just so much easier and better, I know some people have issues with drivers and such but for me a lot of my stuff works with zero configuration which even Windows with its large driver database can't manage, now what with Steam being on Linux I have increasingly less reason to use Windows.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;40610951]Ah yes, the fabled "Unix philosophy." There are good bits of it, but I personally don't consider it to be a be-all-end-all to design.[/QUOTE] "Do one thing and do it well" is my favourite bit, it keeps your program efficient and maintains modularity, you can swap out the tiniest component if you don't like it.