[Sthjrderfida]

I have a computer on my bench that suddenly wouldn't work the mouse. It was not a hardware problem and it didn't matter if I plugged in a PS/2 or USB mouse the dang thing would not move.

So off to perform a repair install. But that did not go well because it fails to fully boot up. Get the wallpaper but nothing else. I can boot in safe mode but it promptly tells me that the system is not activated and thus I cannot logon. But you can only activate in full mode not safe mode. I'm pretty sure that I could get this pile of warm brown stuff to work if I could log on. Bill Gates can go shove it. I'll probably have to nuke and pave this one and I hate that.

[ReggieRed]

I too hate Windows!!! I feel for you!!

[Dvjkefdw]

No doubt el Diablo is constructing a 10th Circle condo for BG's exclusive use.



Or IS BG el Diablo?

[CoiI8XIj]

[OmqMZtkv]

i am a windows fan. i have ascribed to the school of thought that Windows is not the processor hog that geeks lament. I believe that what it does is fully use the processor of your computer to its fullest extent, which is efficient and what i want out of a computer. Why have 3ghz and only use 1.4ghz when performing multiple tasks? The whole "bloat" argument is, i think, misguided.

the only real downside of windows from my "user" perspective is that it is so prone to viruses. Its mostly due to how widespread its use is, and the comfort of scripting for MS platforms.

[vintsqyuid]

http://www.nliteos.com/

My opinion is applications like this wouldn't exist if windows wasn't so bloated.

I've stripped down XP installs to the point where I can boot up & the OS will only be using 60MB of Ram.

I can install open office, firefox, AVG antivirus & pretty much any other application that doesn't require microsofts html script engine to run.

When you remove that, you remove IE & most of it's vulnerabilities to the OS & a lot of bloat.

Now, some people may not be able to get by on a PC with those limited restrictions. I can.

[Pdarasenko]

but if your processor is barely being used, how is that good? You have left over work capability, but no workload being used. isn't that inefficient?

if i were to design an OS, my goal would be to use about 95% of the processor at all times, no matter what. this means i am delivering the highest processing speeds in all environments.

[agracias]

Give me a Unix network anyday! I hate Windows!!

[qd0vhq4f]

but if your processor is barely being used, how is that good? You have left over work capability, but no workload being used. isn't that inefficient?

if i were to design an OS, my goal would be to use about 95% of the processor at all times, no matter what. this means i am delivering the highest processing speeds in all environments.

It's the nature of the windows kernal. it's just not that efficient. It's a fullsized car with a 4-banger. I just strip off some pieces to make it lighter & go faster.

The Linux Kernal utilizes the CPU more than Windows does.

For example, I dual boot a PC with Vista & Linux.
The CPU runs hotter when i'm in Linux & the desktop / app loading is more responsive than while in Vista.

I've witnessed this all the way back to when I ran linux on my cyrix 233mhz. I could over clock the CPU to 300mhz on windows but it would overheat on Linux.

That tells me Linux utilizes the CPU more than windows.

[bubborn]

Give me a Unix network anyday! I hate Windows!!

when i was still in call centers our biggest nightmare was with a Unix system. Our site ran Server 2k from MS, but our new client ran systems with Unix. THeir first mistake was setting up a Genesys call routing system, instead of a Geotel. Besides that, we had nightmarish trouble getting their Unix network to recognize the data stream that was being fed. We constantly lost connection, and they constantly had issue with load balancing between the various servers in the array.

On our end, it was 100% "plug and play". It worked without fail, without issue.

It was a Unix system designed by Sun Microsystems.

[emupsMaispubs]

when i was still in call centers our biggest nightmare was with a Unix system. Our site ran Server 2k from MS, but our new client ran systems with Unix. THeir first mistake was setting up a Genesys call routing system, instead of a Geotel. Besides that, we had nightmarish trouble getting their Unix network to recognize the data stream that was being fed. We constantly lost connection, and they constantly had issue with load balancing between the various servers in the array.

On our end, it was 100% "plug and play". It worked without fail, without issue.

It was a Unix system designed by Sun Microsystems.

I have limited experience with Sun, I worked with SGI and IBM mostly, some SCO. I like the SGI its very gui driven, IBM has smit but SGI was really cool, all the graphics and the up time was just unbeatable. That was a few years ago as I've been in the Windows world now for about 6yrs.

[Beauseaccerce]

I have limited experience with Sun, I worked with SGI and IBM mostly, some SCO. I like the SGI its very gui driven, IBM has smit but SGI was really cool, all the graphics and the up time was just unbeatable. That was a few years ago as I've been in the Windows world now for about 6yrs.

well, Unix is the backbone of a lot of very successful OS's. There is something to be said for that.

[Kvkcgktl]

We still have an old OS/2 machine, LOL!!! It drives me crazy!!!

[KJnbceja]

but if your processor is barely being used, how is that good? You have left over work capability, but no workload being used. isn't that inefficient?

if i were to design an OS, my goal would be to use about 95% of the processor at all times, no matter what. this means i am delivering the highest processing speeds in all environments.

If the same amount of work is being done in less flops then that can't be considered inefficient. More flops is more heat, more electricity used, and more time. That can't be as efficient.

I have several dual boot systems on ALL of them the boot time is faster in Ubuntu then in Windows. The time to load and run an app is shorter in Ubuntu then Windows. One of the big problems with windows is the great deal of legacy code still in the kernel. Not to mention that it's code is over 15 years old and STILL is not very modular. You can't make many changes in Windows without having to reboot. You are forced to load every part of the os.

I have both Windows servers and Linux servers. The linux servers only boot to a command line. When I need a GUI, I can issue a single command and have it launch. When I am done with it I can shut that part down. It's much faster and I need less state of art hardware to get a fast and functional server.

The only time I reboot it is when I patch the kernel. I can change drivers, change my mail server settings, make network changes, patch the GUI and never have to reboot. The service is stopped and restarted. I don't have to mess with a convoluted and prone to error database called the registry that if it fails takes out the entire system. If I have a rare major crash all I have to do is reset the GUI. I don't have to reboot the system.

I also don't have to mess with the inane drive letter system. Ever add a second hard drive to an existing Windows system? For some reason known only to the creators of DOS a hard drive MUST be placed before the CD-ROM drives. SO if you have CDROM at drive D. It gets moved to Drive E: All your previously installed programs still look at drive D. If you have a game or a program that needs to see the CD Rom drive you have to either edit the registry(good luck with that) or reinstall. PITA. It Linux the drive is mounted where ever I want it to be. Linux systems use the superior Ext3 and now Ext4 file systems. They never need to be defragged.

And note that as a Mac is Unix based most all of the statements above also apply to it as well.

[Biradallo]

if i were to design an OS, my goal would be to use about 95% of the processor at all times, no matter what. this means i am delivering the highest processing speeds in all environments.

I don't get how that would be efficient. If you have no work to be done, why have a processor cranking away at busy work, using power, churning out heat and consuming it's limited lifespan? Correct me if I am wrong here, but there is no greater latency going from idle to 100% utilization than there is from 75% to 95%.

If you want a processor that is efficient by this standard, go find a 386sx. It should be pegged at 100% all the time using any modern OS.

I've dull booted Ubuntu on my desktop and I can boot win7 and open photoshop cs3 faster than I can boot ubuntu to its gui. Not sure why but my desktop boots Win7 super fast.

[VIAGRA-]

but if your processor is barely being used, how is that good? You have left over work capability, but no workload being used. isn't that inefficient?

if i were to design an OS, my goal would be to use about 95% of the processor at all times, no matter what. this means i am delivering the highest processing speeds in all environments.

You must not run any outside applications that take up a lot of processor...like computer games and whatnot. The object for a lot of people is to have an OS that uses the minimum amount of CPU so it doesn't slow down when they are using other applications. I don't know enough to really shave it down like Vendetta does but I do go in and routinely check all the apps and background programs and startup crap that they try to sneak in and shut them down.

[IntinyBut]

I don't get how that would be efficient. If you have no work to be done, why have a processor cranking away at busy work, using power, churning out heat and consuming it's limited lifespan? Correct me if I am wrong here, but there is no greater latency going from idle to 100% utilization than there is from 75% to 95%.

If you want a processor that is efficient by this standard, go find a 386sx. It should be pegged at 100% all the time using any modern OS.

I've dull booted Ubuntu on my desktop and I can boot win7 and open photoshop cs3 faster than I can boot ubuntu to its gui. Not sure why but my desktop boots Win7 super fast.

But there IS latency when you consider things like memory cache. I know, i didn't mention that, so it isn't really part of this discussion. But, if you have it in RAM, you don't have to go through your HD to find it.

Regardless, if the OS doesn't actually have enough work to share across a quad core processor with full utilization, of course you wouldn't want to just make busy work. I have some complex thoughts that i would like to share, but want to do so when i am more awake and able to express them better.

I don't run much anymore. I do my gaming on XBox, not on the CPU. I do build some flash animations, and play with Photoshop CS3 quite a bit. In the past i built really heavy databases, and did things that were RAM intensive, not CPU intensive (very large powerpoints, OLAP data cubes, etc).

I can see the benefits of running a computer from a command line. I started computing with DOS 5.0. That little 286 computer was at least as responsive, if not more, than my 3ghz laptop that i am typing on right now.

Maybe this is more about user. I am not a computer builder or programmer. I am also not a "tweak freak". You should see what my desktop looks like. Talk about cluttered. Without the need to run 3d compilers, or graphic intensive video games, i find Windows to run exceptionally well.

[Fsfkkkjz]

Gee...I never have issues like that with my Mac.

[dselectronics]

You must not run any outside applications that take up a lot of processor...like computer games and whatnot. The object for a lot of people is to have an OS that uses the minimum amount of CPU so it doesn't slow down when they are using other applications. I don't know enough to really shave it down like Vendetta does but I do go in and routinely check all the apps and background programs and startup crap that they try to sneak in and shut them down.

It isn't quite like that.
From what I have seen Linux uses as much of the cpu as it can when it performs a function. It utilizes more transisters & yes it does make the PC run hotter.

But it's more efficient in the long run.

Utilizing the cpu more doesn't mean it runs out of processing power when you launch another app. It load balances quite well.

This is why I can get by on a P3 system quite well using linux.

I'm running linux on a 600mhz laptop with 256 ram. It's quite speedy for what I use it for.

E-mail, web surfing, & things like SNES game emulator.

From boot to checking e-mail it's easily twice as fast as when I had XP on it.

The desktop is different when it comes to file manipulation but that is a drawback i'm willing to accept for a lightweight snappy system.

Windows 7 i'm sure was designed to fix the problems in Vista & to also stick it to popular distro's like Ubuntu.

Microsoft needs to be able to say "see, windows 7 boots faster than linux now" Except, Ubuntu can probably do something about that.

I'll probably still use windows myself but I probably won't go to windows 7 just yet.

[Muesrasrs]

Gee...I never have issues like that with my Mac.

That is because it is a linux/unix based OS that was built exceptionally well.

People forget that I think.
It's what Ubuntu & other Linux Distro's could become with serious financial funding.

I would actually get a MAC if they didn't cost so damn much.