 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
> users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way more
> annoying than KDE 3.
I do hear lots of people complaining about that. Have *you* tried KDE 4? It
makes more UI changes than XP->Vista did.
Most for the better, but it's still a lot of change that you have to get
used to. "KDE is revolutionary, GNOME is evolutionary"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Vista rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack AFAIK...
>
> Yes - I do recall somebody complaining that all the bugfix work put into
> the old stack has now effectively been lost, with the new stack having a
> new and unknown set of bugs.
I recall reports of very beta versions of Vista having security bugs in the
TCP/IP stack that had been fixed in Windows 95. (like sending a fake ping
packet with source address 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode infinite loop,
replying to its own ping, locking up your machine very badly)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now if it really *was* faster, people would notice that. And they'd like
> it. Trouble is, they also notice when the reverse happens...
I haven't seen any reviews of Vista complaining the actual released
version was slower. Of course if you turn on debugging in the OS, it'll
be slower.
> M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
> users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way more
> annoying than KDE 3.
Except developers. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> No, but I've heard a *lot* of people say that Linux (of any variety!) is
> significantly more annoying that Windows!
It's also a lot easier to be less annoying when you can blame the most
annoying problems in Linux on Microsoft anyway. </sarcasm>
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Now if it really *was* faster, people would notice that. And they'd like
> > it. Trouble is, they also notice when the reverse happens...
> I haven't seen any reviews of Vista complaining the actual released
> version was slower.
Slower than what? XP? Well, there's at least this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Slower than what? XP? Well, there's at least this:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html
That was pretty good. I'm actually rather surprised that there's a
noticeable difference in speed on computer-bound tasks like encoding.
You would think that there isn't much you can do to hurt that, but
perhaps some of the changes like tighter scheduling is adding overhead
that isn't useful when you only have one compute-bound task running.
Even so, 20% seems rather a large overhead for something like that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I recall reports of very beta versions of Vista having security bugs in the
> TCP/IP stack that had been fixed in Windows 95.
Heck, these kind of problems were found and fixed in the first TCP
bake-offs in the early 70's. Yet, somehow, everyone who writes a TCP
stack doesn't seem to bother to check for these things. Ping-of-death,
christmas tree packets, martian packets, all these are stuff people
figured out would be problems around 1972, and published their results
as RFCs, yet implementors seem to never learn.
How many years did Sun recommend you turn off pings at the firewall so
nobody sent you a ping with a source address being the broadcast address?
I guess by the time it's time to write a new TCP stack, it's a new
generation of programmers working on it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Even so, 20% seems rather a large overhead for something like that.
Actually, Vista does power saving by turning down the CPU speed and
limiting the maximum speed. Tom's Hardware is generally pretty
cluefull, and their benchmarks are pretty well documented and all, but I
wonder if they turned that off. I'd read someone else say it could take
a couple of seconds for your programs to get up to speed, but I thought
that sounded pretty silly. Now I have to wonder if they were right and
Vista really does keep the CPU slow for longer than I'd expect. Hmmmm...
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Actually, Vista does power saving by turning down the CPU speed and
> limiting the maximum speed. Tom's Hardware is generally pretty
> cluefull, and their benchmarks are pretty well documented and all, but I
> wonder if they turned that off. I'd read someone else say it could take
> a couple of seconds for your programs to get up to speed, but I thought
> that sounded pretty silly. Now I have to wonder if they were right and
> Vista really does keep the CPU slow for longer than I'd expect. Hmmmm...
>
After months of running Ubuntu, I discovered it was throttling the CPU. I
keep nice 19 processes using 100% CPU 24/7, and I want all the speed I can
get from the CPU.
(they're nice 19 just so they don't make the desktop slower, I still want
them to run as fast as they can)
I had to set some relatively obscure parameter to "performance"
(was "ondemand").
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> After months of running Ubuntu, I discovered it was throttling the CPU. I
> keep nice 19 processes using 100% CPU 24/7, and I want all the speed I can
> get from the CPU.
> (they're nice 19 just so they don't make the desktop slower, I still want
> them to run as fast as they can)
In my experience even if there is only one single CPU-intensive process
running at nice level 19 it will run slower than if it was running eg. at
nice level 4 (which is the default for nice when you don't specify a number).
I'm not exactly sure why this is so nor do I have any references to this,
but it's what I have experienced. Maybe a process at nice level 19 really
is at the very bottom of the barrel and *anything* will override it, no
matter how light. For this reason whenever I want to make a process (such
as povray) run with a lower scheduling priority I just use the default nice
level (ie. 4). That seems to give basically all free CPU to the process but
will not hinder other processes which temporarily need it more. Also in this
case the nice 4 process still gets a fair share of the CPU and doesn't get
completely halted.
Also in my experience nice level 4 is completely enough to keep a heavy
process, well, nice. For example I have run long povray renders with nice
level 4 and at the same time watched videos with mplayer without any
problems.
I suppose the only cases where you want to use a nice value different
from 4 is when you want two or more heavy processes running at the same
time and you want one of them getting more CPU than the others. The
difference in priorites will affect how the CPU is shared between them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
