Microsoft Dev Explains Why Windows is Slower than Linux - Polidicks

Linux is absolutely shit on AMD processors. Intel, it's great but on my AMD configuration, it's buggy, it doesn't run well, there are problems installing it to the machine for some reason and multi-monitor scaling is FUCKED. Don't have any problems when I put my Intel motherboard in the EXACT same configuration.

[QUOTE=Daniel M;40622188]Linux is absolutely shit on AMD processors. Intel, it's great but on my AMD configuration, it's buggy, it doesn't run well, there are problems installing it to the machine for some reason and multi-monitor scaling is FUCKED. Don't have any problems when I put my Intel motherboard in the EXACT same configuration.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about exactly? Do you mean AMD's APUs?

[QUOTE=Daniel M;40622188]Linux is absolutely shit on AMD processors. Intel, it's great but on my AMD configuration, it's buggy, it doesn't run well, there are problems installing it to the machine for some reason and multi-monitor scaling is FUCKED. Don't have any problems when I put my Intel motherboard in the EXACT same configuration.[/QUOTE] sounds a lot like a graphics problem, which would make sense as AMD graphics drivers for linux aren't great

Standard corporate monstrosity. Just like EA, and the Call of Duty pipeline. 'We don't give a fuck that the actual game developers have now left to do their own thing, just hire some money grabbing CEOs, and kids straight outta college to pump out 90 shite sequels and wonder why no real gamers buy our games anymore.'

[QUOTE=Jookia;40622065]... Considering we use multitasking systems that each access files over different areas of the disk (what are the chances Firefox will open up a file just after Steam's?), putting files next to each other is a relic from DOS when only one program could run at a time.[/QUOTE] Fairly high? They'll rely on similar base files (like fonts/libraries/etc.), and storing them all together on disk speeds it up since it can read more data into memory at once and reduces seek times (e.g. on Windows if you ask it to read a small part of the disk it will actually read a larger part and cache it, so if you have to read anything near that segment it'll go straight from memory)

Windows and Linux have technologies that build Markov chains out of your file usage patterns and load files into memory before they're even required, as unused RAM is wasted RAM. I currently have only 22 MB free out of my 8 GB. Libraries, fonts and other common small files should only be loaded once from the filesystem: the rest of the time they're either cached in your RAM or in your swap space. [editline]13th May 2013[/editline] Or actually I don't know if preload is commonly used on Linux, I just know it exists. Windows does it very transparently.

[QUOTE=danharibo;40621806]There is still fragmentation, it's just less severe.[/QUOTE] true but it's so small that it never needs to be defragmented

[QUOTE=ThePuska;40622803]Windows and Linux have technologies that build Markov chains out of your file usage patterns and load files into memory before they're even required, as unused RAM is wasted RAM. I currently have only 22 MB free out of my 8 GB. Libraries, fonts and other common small files should only be loaded once from the filesystem: the rest of the time they're either cached in your RAM or in your swap space. [editline]13th May 2013[/editline] Or actually I don't know if preload is commonly used on Linux, I just know it exists. Windows does it very transparently.[/QUOTE] Definitely. On my Arch print server, according to htop, 22 MB is being used by active processes. It looks like ~100 MB is for the cache. It has 512 total MB but there isn't a whole lot on it to cache. [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] Yep, 125 MB reported in "free".

[QUOTE=Daniel M;40622188]Linux is absolutely shit on AMD processors. Intel, it's great but on my AMD configuration, it's buggy, it doesn't run well, there are problems installing it to the machine for some reason and multi-monitor scaling is FUCKED. Don't have any problems when I put my Intel motherboard in the EXACT same configuration.[/QUOTE] My Phenom II behaves well enough, but I'm not dumb enough to come back for another fucking from AMD GPU's the drivers still seem to be awful on every platform.

Over the last few years, I've really started to hate the file structure of Windows. I don't give a fuck that I have like 3 drives, and then DVD-drive, just give me my files. Having everything under a root is just simply superior. It's the same in every system, and there's nothing stupid like allocating letters to drives.

[QUOTE=nikomo;40625914]Over the last few years, I've really started to hate the file structure of Windows. I don't give a fuck that I have like 3 drives, and then DVD-drive, just give me my files. Having everything under a root is just simply superior. It's the same in every system, and there's nothing stupid like allocating letters to drives.[/QUOTE] No I like knowing what's on which drive. It allows me to allocate various things to different sized drives, and what I'm losing if I take a drive out.

[QUOTE=Van-man;40610439]Or in other words "I don't have any experience with alternatives and/or are afraid of changes"[/QUOTE] because they are all bad

[QUOTE=Matriax;40626037]No I like knowing what's on which drive. It allows me to allocate various things to different sized drives, and what I'm losing if I take a drive out.[/QUOTE] You don't loose that by having a root.

[QUOTE=ItsMozy;40617364]Let me start off by saying I don't know a lot about programming or OS's and shit. But I do have a question, isn't stuff like not fixxing/replacing NTFS or other file system a result of ignoring it for so long it has become almost impossible to fix?[/QUOTE] Not really. Generally speaking for most situations NTFS is completely fine and as such, while theirs continous updates, there's no need for a big switch to a new filesystem, like in the case FAT. Overall it's a very robust filesystem. It's also a bit of a case of not breaking what works well. Just consider that fat, and EXfat is used in a massive array of devices all over. Other than that, MS is fully capable replacing the filesystem and keeping some NTFS compatibility drivers. [QUOTE=nikomo;40625914]Over the last few years, I've really started to hate the file structure of Windows. I don't give a fuck that I have like 3 drives, and then DVD-drive, just give me my files. Having everything under a root is just simply superior. It's the same in every system, and there's nothing stupid like allocating letters to drives.[/QUOTE] And I personally hate root, in part because I used to move a lot of discs around. Plus it's not so hard to create rootlike behaviour on windows my merging the discs. Honestly in my opinion the main differences between the big three operating systems is their aproach to modularity mostly from a user perspective. (not talking developer here) Linux - incredibly modular with stuff sort of brokered around Windows - odd mix of modularity and non-modularity. It allows to swap out a lot of stuff relatively easily, but still keeps a huge load of stuff in a central repository, aka the registry hives Osx - an even weirder mix, where the applications are generally self contained, but the system is anything but.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40622405]Fairly high? They'll rely on similar base files (like fonts/libraries/etc.), and storing them all together on disk speeds it up since it can read more data into memory at once and reduces seek times (e.g. on Windows if you ask it to read a small part of the disk it will actually read a larger part and cache it, so if you have to read anything near that segment it'll go straight from memory)[/QUOTE] This only really happens if you're loading a ton of programs at once, otherwise the disk is seeking all over the place anyway. [QUOTE=wraithcat;40626205]And I personally hate root, in part because I used to move a lot of discs around. Plus it's not so hard to create rootlike behaviour on windows my merging the discs.[/QUOTE] I love root, because it abstracts the idea that my computer runs on disks at all. None of my programs know that my /home is on a different disk to /, and if I really want to I could split part of my /home in to another partition with no programs caring. If you're moving disks around, you'll want a root system instead of various 'drives' that move around everywhere.

[QUOTE=Jookia;40626238]This only really happens if you're loading a ton of programs at once, otherwise the disk is seeking all over the place anyway. I love root, because it abstracts the idea that my computer runs on disks at all. None of my programs know that my /home is on a different disk to /, and if I really want to I could split part of my /home in to another partition with no programs caring. If you're moving disks around, you'll want a root system instead of various 'drives' that move around everywhere.[/QUOTE] Uh sure I know there's benefits to both, I just am far more comfortable with using relatively discreet areas and psubsting in and out a lot. I know I could do pretty much the same thing with junctions, but its' a force of habit. I much prefer computer/disc/files to root (computer in a sense)/files

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;40618711]ok no one's disagreeing with you[/QUOTE]Well I wasn't arguing anything else, so not sure what your original point was :v: Lack of sleep is a hell of a drug, I tell ya.

Edit: If you're running an NT based OS you can mount any random partition under any random folder, it's a lot more flexible that the DOS style "C:\" stuff (Which is kept around purely for backwards compat reasons, internally Windows doesn't use drive letters or DOS style paths) [QUOTE=Jookia;40626238]This only really happens if you're loading a ton of programs at once, otherwise the disk is seeking all over the place anyway. ...[/QUOTE] Like during system boot? There's also various utilities to re-order files on disk to match their general use (So if the first things you do when the computer boots is start Firefox and Steam, it'll place them together on disk) And speaking of filesystems, the design of btrfs apparently increases fragmentation due to the cow behaviour (But it does actually have the ability to place files all over the place on disk, only if you have a SSD)

[QUOTE=Van-man;40609588][code] sudo su apt-get update && apt-get upgrade [/code] Bam, system is getting updated.[/QUOTE] Man, apt is such a nice program. I wish we had something like it for Windows that wasn't an app store or a bloated graphical tool. The Ubuntu approach to merging package managers with app stores is nice. They have the Ubuntu Package Manager now that's faster than Synaptic, and has things neatly separated into normal packages, and then an actual app store side. Search brings up both results and it tells you right away if it's commercial or open-source, and there's reviews and ratings and shit for both. Very nice stuff.

[QUOTE=Daniel M;40622188]Linux is absolutely shit on AMD processors. Intel, it's great but on my AMD configuration, it's buggy, it doesn't run well, there are problems installing it to the machine for some reason and multi-monitor scaling is FUCKED. Don't have any problems when I put my Intel motherboard in the EXACT same configuration.[/QUOTE] I've been using Linux on AMD machines since 2003 and have never had a problem. Video drivers are a different story though, which is what I think you're having issues with. You can't blame AMD CPUs for shitty XOrg video drivers.