oh god. It's horrible.
I set up a friends new computer last night. A brand new, 2.5k USD, HP Media PC.
Quad Core Intel 3ghz CPU
4GiB DDR2-667
NVIDIA 8400GS 256MiB Video Card
500GiB SATA 3Gb/s HDD
etc., etc.
Vista takes FOREVER to boot and it's responsiveness lags a bit at random times doing whatever.
I don't care how crappy an OS is. it should run *fine* on that specced out of a machine :(
*Goes back to his 33mhz,128mb, NeXT that is always responsive*
OPENSTEP probably runs faster in VMware on my old P3 than Vista does on your new monster :P
Frankly, I happen to LIKE the design of the NT kernel, but it was only decently implemented ONCE (Windows 2000 is, along with MS DOS 5, one of only two stable products that M$ ever created.)
Well, we have a Windows 2003 Server R2 at work, and it's been 100% stable so far. Only issues we have had were when on of the RAIDed SCSI drives crapped out.
Also, NT4 SP6 is actually quite good ;) I ran it for awhile on an old home computer and on my work PC before I got a new one with XP Pro. NT4SP6 uses very little ram and was really fast on my machine with no BSOD issues of any kind.
but vista... It's going to take 2 or 3 service packs before it is really "usable"
yeah, like Tiger needed the software updates to 10.4.3 and above, so you could use it right ... and Leopard I belive with ver. 10.5.0 will be buggy too
From my observations, it seems that "Modern" OS'se are coded with the mentality that ram and HD space are basically unlimited. This applies to Windows, OSX and to a lesser extent some of the Linux distros like Ubuntu. There seems to be no pressure to optimize code to be really efficient or tight with management of resources, cause you can always add more ram or another core to carry the load. To my mind, this leads to sloppy coding practices, and a resulting buggy product.
Chef
I think this sums it up nicely:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/18.html"As a programmer, thanks to plummeting memory prices, and CPU speeds doubling every year, you had a choice. You could spend six months rewriting your inner loops in Assembler, or take six months off to play drums in a rock and roll band, and in either case, your program would run faster. Assembler programmers don't have groupies......"
Quote from: "neozeed"I think this sums it up nicely:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/18.html
"As a programmer, thanks to plummeting memory prices, and CPU speeds doubling every year, you had a choice. You could spend six months rewriting your inner loops in Assembler, or take six months off to play drums in a rock and roll band, and in either case, your program would run faster. Assembler programmers don't have groupies......"
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
As an older guy I used to work with would say, "If your not coding in Assembler, then you are really not coding".
It's true. As computer hardware gets faster the programs get slower... They just generally 'seem' faster because the poor hardware has just enough of an edge to make it so :)
anyways, this talk of bloated coding and poor optimization forces me to post my all time favorite coder story...
The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html:)
Quote from: "helf"It's true. As computer hardware gets faster the programs get slower... They just generally 'seem' faster because the poor hardware has just enough of an edge to make it so :)
anyways, this talk of bloated coding and poor optimization forces me to post my all time favorite coder story...
The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html
:)
An oldie, but certainly a goldie!
QuoteIn modern parlance,
every single instruction was followed by a GO TO!
Put *that* in Pascal's pipe and smoke it.
:lol: :lol: