Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away
nontroppo:
I think all the main tests in the table claim to be virtualised, which is his first phase analysis, then he will start to use real hardware. At least the table says (virtual) across the board. He is not very clear.
Booting XP into 512MB or 768MB virtual machines on my macbook via VMWare is blazingly fast (faster than any other XP machine I use), I think it depends on the Host capabilities (centrino doesn't support intel virtualization instructions?)
Darwin:
I just timed it - virtualized on the Centrino, Win2k took 80 seconds to load. On my PIII-E it takes about... 80 seconds. So much for seat of the pants impressions... I guess this just reflects how anaemic my current CPU is compared to a modern processor - it's single core and the first generation P-M versus the dual core speed demons available today. Of course, I suppose I could play around with other virtualization options. Frankly, though, I'm tempted to lose the one that I've got as I don't really have a need for it (beyond the tried and true "gee whiz, neato" factor).
Lashiec:
The duopoly between operating systems and hardware makes me laugh. You could say there's some duopoly between hardware manufactures and some software developers, but frankly, nobody is waiting for a new operating system to come out and take advantage of their newly acquired hardware. Hardware constantly advances, independently of the software, and people updates it as they want, no one is going to stay for years with their old systems (the saying "if it works, why change it?" has a limited life IMHO).
I wonder... if there's this "Wintel" thing, why is Intel one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel, and why Apple now uses x86 architecture? Or why they're pushing their products in every market they can put a processor in. Intel fortunes now depend on themselves, maybe there was a time that Windows was capital in their strategy, but if Windows goes down, and something else takes its place, Intel will simply chug along. And AMD as well (if they can finally rid of red numbers next year).
Nobody wanted a Core 2 Duo? :huh:
Of course, all of this can't hide the fact that Microsoft went a little overboard this time with Vista requirements, but in the case of Office, OpenOffice can't really be an example of how to make efficient office suites. And like the recent blog entry that Jeff Atwood published, software tends to spoil after some versions. Ask Adobe, Symantec, Corel, etc. Hey, a theory: Big company -> Inefficient software ;D
f0dder:
but in the case of Office, OpenOffice can't really be an example of how to make efficient office suites.
--- End quote ---
Amen to that!
Although looking aside from the bloat and pathetic slow startup times, it does seem (first impression, not benchmarked) that their scripting runs faster than the VBA in office...
Darwin:
Yes - Open/Star Office can hardly be offered up as examples of speed demons. Having said that, it is worth noting that from my understanding this is actually due to their ongoing decision to preload all of the components whenever a user fires up any part of the suite...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version