Read more on Cloud Computing
March 26, 2006 9:00 AM PST
Windows is so slow, but why?
The software company's effort to launch a new version of its OS might be hindered by its past success and its bundling strategy.
The New York Times
The story "Windows is so slow, but why?" published March 26, 2006 at 9:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
170 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
1000s of diverse systems, legacy code, dumbing down for the
masses, fundamental design flaws can't be fixed with patch
upon patch.
Mutton dressed as lamb.
Developing Windows is like trying to turn a tanker.
OS X is leaving Windows in the dust, but as we all now Joe Public
is dumb and it takes time for them to wake up. They will and
they are slowly. Just watch the market share over the next few
years.
With Vista, as I said over a year ago, Microsoft will truly
humiliate themselves. It must be embarrasing to release an OS
after having removed feature after feature that Apple users have
been using for 2 years or so.
Apple will be releasng Mac OS X 10.5 at VERY nearly the same
time as Vista (ot maybe even before at this rate - hah!) to rub
even more salt in the wounds of peecee freaks.
It's a sad embarrasing time to be a peecee user trying to defend
their misplaced purchase. To prevent further ridicule I would
suggest joining those of us who think for ourselves and do
RESEARCH before buying a tool rather than just buying what
everyone else has and by looking at the price on the tag. doh.
Start your research here.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/quicktours/viewall.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/macosx/quicktours/viewall.html</a>
Why exactly do you want everyone to switch to mac os? If Joe Public is dumb, and he switched to Mac OS, wouldn't that make Mac the dumb OS?
I'm not sure how you come up with your masterful predictions for the future. I wouldn't be so sure that MS will be humiliated since they already have >90% of the OS market. Change does not happen overnight and people are not switching to Macs at a very fast rate. Rather, most of Apple's growth is coming from its ipods and itunes.
You said "to prevent further ridicule..." If all I have to put up with is your ridicule, I'm pretty sure I can deal with it.
I think windows and mac and linux users and whoever else should go on using their OS of choice and they can think they are better then everyone else if they want. If they want to switch than by all means go for it. The market #s and $$ speak louder than the ridicule of some elitists using another system anyway.
I'll be the first to admit Windows sucks but I'd rather use a PC with Linux/BSD than switch to a Mac. No backwards compatibility, limited hardware vendors, and serious lack of software titles!! I don't see how OSX is leaving Windows in the dust since I am able to do everything on my PC that you can do on your Mac. Remember Microsoft isnt allowed to include all those special tools due to the whole anti-trust thing. But it doesn't mean they don't exist.
If you want to talk about humiliating lets talk about OSX getting hacked in under 30 minutes. How you are able to develop a BSD based OS that can be hacked so quickly is really beyond me. I think Apple is showing that thay are not really up for the challenge of the mainstream just yet. 90% of the market use Windows that doesnt mean 10% use OSX. I did research my product and found that my PC runs faster than your Mac and costs about 1/2 the price. Now who made the dumb purchase?
OSX is good but not that good and certainly not worth the price tag. Stop being a tool and look beyond your Mac.
I hate to say this, but the ipod and itunes are really the only "innovative" thing apple has going for them at the time.
What can a MAC do that a PC cant do right now??
Death to the non-believers!
But it was a nice try for a fan boy. Only reason I run XP is for games. I have a G4 for music and a Linspire box for just doing web stuff.
Until Apple pulls in more games, it will never even come close to catching Windows.
I'll rmember to buy a mac next time. You know, when i set up a workstation for someone who needs to run autocad... oops thats right no support for mac... well what about solid works... oops no support for mac... Oh i know, how about if we need to use primevara expedition... oops no support for mac.. Lets talk group policy. I run a corporate network and want to lock down workstations and assign specific permissions for resources on their workstations... oops no support in macs.
Blow up macs all you want as the cure all for all computer ills. Until mac has the support of the REST OF THE INDUSTRY they will always be second fiddle to microsoft.
As a "PC person" I can see the attraction - wider (and usually cheaper) software base for a start...
Seeing as Os10.x is starting to attract a lot more attention from the black hat community, the usual cry (last defence?) of Mac Fanatics everywhere of "System Security" doesn't hold a lot of water either. XP is certainly flawed - I don't claim it's perfect by any means! - but there are at least good products out there to protect it (and Microsoft's own OneCare product - integrated Spy/Mal/Virus protection looks superb so far).
As a side note, I saw my first Mac Virus back in 1988 - it went by the name of "MacPuke" - recently I've seen far, far too many claims that "there are no Mac Viruses". Two comments from that one - first off, just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't out there, and secondly, just because no-one chooses to shoot at you, it doesn't mean you're bulletproof.
But (talking of bullets)enough sniping. Welcome to XP, Mac Dudes! I just hope your Macs don't crash as much as our PC's do ;)
for rather obvious reasons; XP or Vixta can't compete. And there
is no reason to be concerned about an OS X virus until one
actually shows up in the wild - so far, nothing..........
Sure, XP is adequate as an OS. Vista may be, if MS can ever get it
out. The article points out serious development flaws at MS;
these may now be fatal flaws. Time will tell.
But I'll stick with OS X on my Mac's and XP on my PC's. That's the
Good and the Bad - I'll skip the Ugly.
The other reason, of course, is the more practical: so you can dual-boot your computer. That's especially important for games. It's relatively easy to get Windows games to run under Linux, but not so under Mac OS/X. However, if you ae dual-booting, you can use Mac OS/X for productivity and Windows for games.
OS 9 and earlier was a different platform effectively.
You misunderstand why people want to run Windows on Macs.
loud. Yeah, you get Access bundled, but it's trash compared to
Filemaker, etc... etc... etc...
apps quite well. I can even run dos apps!
Backward compatibility is not the issue. It is the
fundamental design of the operating system that is
at fault. I must admit I get a certain sense of
satisfaction when I load a Windows virus executable
onto my machine and watch how ineffectual it is.
I also have a linux gateway running to protect Windows
users from themselves by scanning for virus sigs
and other patterns. A sad bunch these Windows users.
Linux is a good example. People believe it's complex. To be turthful, the answer is "it depends" -- you can select a distribution like Gentoo where everything is compiled specifically for the hardware on your machine to eke out every iota of performance or Lindows, where everything is point-and-click dead-simple to the point that WindowsXP looks as primitive as DOS.
Performance? It depends. Some graphics adapters (like Nvidia and some ATI) perform much better in Linux under X than XP, but other cards, much worse. Applications: some very bloated (OpenOffice), others amazingly light-weight, efficient, and robust (Koffice).
Application selection? Look at video editing, there's only 1/2 dozen or so NLE and real-time video editors for Linux, but there's far better support for transcoding and video playback. Office suites, there's only 6. Games? Well, mostly you have to run Windows games under Linux (thankfully most popular games run just fine under Linux).
It can be confusing too. Linux distributions come with drivers for just about everything, which is good if you want to plug-and-play, but it also means that if you buy hardware that doesn't ship with a Linux driver -- so in the rare event you find somehting not included in your distribution you need to hunt doen the Linux driver (personally, with the exception of a scanner once, I've never seen this problem). How about the fact that Linux apps typically support keyless cut-and-paste. What's more confusing than that for those brought up on CTRL-C / CTRL-V (which is typically also supported but using a second clipboard). Multiple desktops? Vector icons and desktops? User hotkeys? Multiple scripting / macro languages for apps? Built-in encryption options? A file-manager (Explorer for Windows users) that groks SFTP, SSH, WebDAV, NFS, SMB, Netware, FTP, HTTP, compressed files, disk images, ...? Password wallets? Lots of the common features of the Linux UI have no built-in parallel in Windows, you need to purchase or download software for the same functionality -- and these things can be immensely confusing.
Which mean to me, the Windows we've got is the Windows we'll get.
As long as MS keeps this attitude, imo, they are doomed to
producing new versions of their old vulnerabilities.
Too bad, they could do so much more.
You know what? Let's play a game of Armchair CEO. If you were Ballmer, what would you do: Keep delaying your software years and years until it works? Or do what Apple did, say screw you to compatibility, and potentially, millions and millions of customers? There is no easy way out for Microsoft.
"Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't."
will take advantage of this situation.
Yes, it would be a good thing for them to actually come up with a brand new OS. They can do it alongside development of Vista. I don't know why everybody thinks it has to be "exclusively" Windows. They can do something completely new that is more secure, faster, more efficient, and adds something truly original to their portfolio. Without taking risks, there can be no great reward. So yes, you are right, there is no easy solution, but that doesn't mean that we can't disagree with the one that they chose. Apple didn't say "screw you". They said that it is time to move on and the move has paid off for everyone. Transition is never easy. I think MS would benefit greatly from doing this. They could actually get the profits they deserve from people that constantly and blatantly copy their software instead of purchase it. I say, go ahead and cut them off. There is no compelling reason not to except for genuine simpathy. But, in real life, we don't sympathize with a jewellery thief, or a bank robber... why is it any different with software? Just because it is easier to do? That is where MS gets caught... they don't want to stand up to that group of people until they have comfortably established themselves as the defacto standard around the world. It is a risk that they are taking at the expense of timely updates and genuine innovation...
Please don't get a Mac.
nonchalantly say Windows is an inferior operating system, one feels
for even Bill Gates. I am no supporter of a certain Oscar nominated
movie, but I will borrow a line from its truly offensive theme song
to describe what Microsoft needs to do to Windows: "Whoop that
trick!" Yes, it is time to kick the current Windows to the curb and
start all over again.
Lohr and Markoff's "article" is a blend of fact and fiction. And in case anyone is counting, every single version of Windows (and just about every other piece of damn software) has its release pushed back. It's part of the process, welcome to the real world of software.
The fact is when you have a minicule market share, you can push out all you want. When you have 330 million users using your operating system and the vast majority of the business sector using servers, "pushing out" software takes on a whole new meaning.
In the end it will matter little, Gates will do what is neccessary and a few years from now, the number will closing in on a half a billion.
defend Microsoft' lobby is missing. The criticism of Windows in the
article is not coming from Apple or Linux fanboys, but from some
of the most prominent computer software experts in the nation.
They know what they are talking about. Windows bloated state due
to refusal to scrap old code is devastating. Instead of attacking
other OSes, Windows user should need to pay more attention to
what has happened to their own.
but then again the max/linux/anti-MS lobby would just say hey look by cutting their legacy support in windows Microsoft is enforcing their monopoly by forcing corporations to redevelop all custom software if they want to move up to the next version of windows or face losing tech support.
Sometimes, you just have to chuck the technology you're using and win your existing customers all over again. Better to "steal" your own existing customers then have your competitors do it. {Steal your existing customers, that is.)
MS will just have to forget about supporting legacy apps in the new OS or end up left with the most backward (and usually poorest) customers as the more technologically advanced ones (who don't want to deal with the bloat and complexity) move on to another OS.
You can only get Apple made hardware only - not Toshiba, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Lenovo, etc. - there are no lesser price or better quality alternatives to the hardware you can get, unlike a PC that uses Windows (which can also be used with Linux). It's this problem that has many businesses not interested in Apples, even the new Intel machines; I remember when they were unveiled, me and a few of my peers were hoping that Apple would loosen its control over its hardware and let Third-party hardware vendors in - no dice, it was disappointing because we love the Macs but that this closed system would only hinder if not stop its appeal to the vast majority.
Despite the success and publicity that Apple seems to be enjoying, it's because on the popularity of its IPod mp3 players but that can only last for five to eight years the most before its competition can offer a better machine and service.
OS X is a wonderful OS but it suffers the same problems as Linux - a popular alternative to Windows but stuck in a niche market among the Apple die-hards and graphics labor market.
Windows for all its faults and problems still allows consumers a very wide variety of choice in terms of hardware - the ability to mix and match according to your budget. And despite all the publicity regarding security holes and internet-related problems in Windows, it is still the best supported OS in regards to these issues, unlike OS X and Linux which have not encountered these problems because of their low profile; and despite being the most advanced OS around, Apple had problems patching up some of the known security issues with OS X.4 (Tiger), while the majority are considered unpatchable at this current time.
I'm not a Windows diehard or Microsoft fan - I hate a lot of the inconsistency in Windows regarding its Windows Server software and Office crap but I've seen both sides - the good and bad, and know that you can't fault Windows or Microsoft for its current problems, it's just another consumer-friendly company catering to its base.
My Two cents.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html" target="_newWindow">http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html</a>
And Macs can boot Windows/Linux natively, even without assistance from Apple or Microsoft:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060316-6393.html" target="_newWindow">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060316-6393.html</a>
So in a nutshell, Apple PC hardware can boot Windows, Linux, or OSX. All other PC hardware can only boot Windows and Linux. Which is more closed?
tight, but I'm not sure how that plays out as
far as a purchase choice. Their hardware is
exceptionally good for consumer PC hardware --
and sold at a reasonable discount (compared to
something of equal quality elsewhere). With the
exception of the motherboard and case, most of
the other components are commodity and you can
use most commodity hardware with it.
Apple's principle issue, in my mind, is inertia.
More so, than Linux. They simply have many
competitors, all of whom have products which are
interchangable and thus commodities. You can say
that Apple should make their platform into a
commodity too, but, in practice their selling
points are difference (not Windows), quality and
consistency (hardware, software, and the
interoperation thereof), and attention to
design. I suspect that Apple does much better by
not commoditizing their platform.
I would also disagree that Linux is "niche".
That would imply limited fitness. Linux has
limited penetration in some areas, but not for
lack of fitness for the task. Linux isn't likely
to be a widely used home OS until: it ships by
default on as many machines as Windows, and
vendors write software for it. The latter is
mostly (but not completely) dependent on the
former. It might change a little with .Net,
since .Net applications are much easier to get
running under Linux than normal Windows
applications (even if MS' support for it is
waning a bit). The current desktops of most
Linux distributions are not sufficiently
different from Win XP in everyday use to pose a
significant issue, and hardware support is about
the same these days (with the exception that XP
generally requires a driver from the vendor).
Linux is very rapidly growing, but almost
exclusively in areas where people consciously
choose which OS to install. The average retail
consumer doesn't want to have a choice of OS,
and the average retail vendor has no desire to
give them one. So long as entry into the desktop
market will require a proactive step on the part
of the consumer, it's not likely to take off.
The fitness or quality of the product has no
bearing on it at the retail level.
"closed system" as you put it.
The vast majority only care about buying the cheapest computer
they can find, or something similar to what they use at work.
MS just needs to suck it up and drop backwards compatibility. If you need to run a legacy app, run it in a Virtual Machine.
Vista has a lot of good ideas (tried and true unix ideas) it's just a matter of if or when we'll actually see them.
features added on top with each OSX version. They entire system
has been reworked 5 times now. Most new software doesn't work
on the first 3 versions anymore.
It's FAR MORE different than, say 'doze 95 to 'doze 98.
Try not to comment on things you have no clue about.
This is similar to microsoft they are a monopoly they have benefited from a monopoly but this has left thier company slow and ineficient. Their bundling is similar to the british bundling of manufacturing and suppliers.
Microsoft doesn't make products for consumers. It makes products for businesses and then as almost an after thought they who then convert the product for home use.
Its not a ground up approach for consumers its a supply side approach of providing a good framework for suppliers and then let the suppliers fit it out.
Pretend I want to play Rainbow 6 (an original Xbox game) on Xbox 360. I put in the game, a message shows up that says "You do not have the proper software to run this game, you need to update. Press A to update, B to not update." Then it updates and I'm playing in minutes.
Maybe they should do the same with Vista 2010. I want to use old Office 2000. So I put in the installation disc, Windows says I need an update, I update, and I'm using old software in seconds.
And just to speed things up, you just offer individual program updates.
Simple. No need for legacy code. Just download compatibly on demand.
Duh.
Hardware don't count on Windows because they add or drop support at the tip of the hat. For example hardware which worked on 98 was not always supported on XP.
Whats more SP2 upgrade caused such a headache to SP1 that it wasn't worth it. By the way at the time MS could not give you instructions ho to uninstall SP 2 and have your system work.
Now MS is saying that they have to have leagacy support?
don't know why?