Why Is Windows XP Still So Much Faster Than Vista? - Info Week column

Discussion in 'Dell' started by S.Lewis, Mar 27, 2008.

  1. S.Lewis

    S.Lewis Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. S.Lewis

    S.Lewis Guest

    The OEM bloatware has always been an XP issue (and earlier OS's as well). A
    typical brand new Dell will come out of the box with somewhere between 55
    and 72 processes running at desktop idle on first boot.

    In most cases, those can pretty easily be trimmed down to 30-40 processes
    providing an immediate improvement in machine performance.

    The problem with Vista is that the XP magic tricks don't help it nearly as
    much, suggesting OS processes that will prevent Vista from ever being
    "snappy" while running a full Aero package.
    S.Lewis, Mar 27, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. S.Lewis

    Ben Myers Guest

    In defense of the software developers who do graphics apps of all sorts, write
    drivers, and do just about any other meaningful software that runs under

    1. Windows, even the now venerable XP, is the most complex and complicated
    operating system ever written. In a sane world, no company will ever try to
    challenge Microsoft in that regard.
    2. The Windows registry is the biggest pile of horse droppings in the history of
    software. It is complicated. It is undocumented, to the masses, anyway. It
    is inscrutible.
    2.1. The tight integration of Internet Explorer with base Windows operating
    system is an abomination and a security nightmare.
    3. Windows Vista was in beta test for a long long time because it was, and still
    is, BUGGY! With complex interwoven code you get something that is a hellish
    mess to debug. Even before that, it is just as hellish to write stable and
    reliable apps. Windows beta cycles are ALWAYS very long.
    4. From release to release to release, Windows is an ever-changing operating
    system platform. Why? Either Microsoft is incompetent, or they know full
    well what they are doing to the rest of the world, namely jerking us all around.
    5. Now put yourself in the collective shoes of any software development team
    with a mission to develop a Windows application. I would not want to ever walk
    in those shoes. I got enough blisters writing code for a much simpler earlier
    version of Windows.

    Do not ever blame 3rd party software developers for being late with their
    product for a given release of Windows. Place the blame exactly where it
    belongs: at the doorstep or moat of Bill Gates. Or Steve Ballmer.

    Why I can almost even defend the incompetent software developers who write the
    drivers and supporting software for HP printers, scanners, and all-in-one
    devices. Their software is notoriously awful, but, hey, they have to live in
    the world of Windows. And maybe it's HP's marketing types that make their
    programmers do stupid things... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Mar 28, 2008
  4. S.Lewis

    Zack Guest

    A bunch of very good points! Windows is extremely complex
    (not in a flattering sense), and it even has the GUI integrated
    with the OS. (Which is a nasty curse for having a fully stable
    system to start with.) It is really hard to develop complicated
    apps for it, what anyone who's done it will readily confirm I
    think. (The point #4: i'd say it's just so tough that it is above
    their heads, too; it's a moving target for them too.)

    On the other hand - this is my opinion, and the one I do not
    hold very tightly - I would say that the industry is to blame a
    little; they may have been a little ... lazy, or 'comfy,' with XP.
    There are expenses, and big inconveniences, in adjusting
    to a new system, and much of the industry may simply have
    been reluctant to roll up their sleeves. Again, it comes back
    to what Ben says: Windows systems and environments are
    complex, and only getting more so, so it *is* hard.

    (My opinion, right? PS. I haven't read the quoted article.)

    I must say the other thing: for me Vista is NOT slower.
    I don't have a very complex set up, but I've run it loaded,
    and with CPU intense stuff too, and it is not slower. (I am
    not saying it's snappy and lively, I can see clearly that it
    is a bigger system. But it is not slow. For me.)
    Zack, Mar 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.