"Fernando Cassia" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:cacgw4h6_ctxw4vcvl_f7wjl8kdpv1wtzqiyws0t4petw-5m...@mail.gmail.com...
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:02 PM, John <[email protected]> wrote: Fortunately, my experience with 64-bit Windows 7 has been stellar. It´s really a matter of common sense... less lines of code execute faster than more lines of code. I mean... just look at the size of Win2k vs Win7.... Millon lines of source code: 1996 Windows NT 4.0 11-12[1] 2000 Windows 2000 more than 29[1] 2001 Windows XP 45 Win7 50** Linux kernel 2.6.35 13.5[8] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code **http://www.howmanyarethere.org/how-many-lines-of-code-in-windows-7/ More reading: http://blog.testfreaks.com/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/ "So far three out of these four tests have gone to Windows Xp." "So with these results, what do you get from all of this? To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system. Sure the others look nicer, but in terms of performance I think Xp is the one to go with on average. " (that´s because he didn´t benchmark win2k ;) The above is REAL benchmarking, with different software, on today´s hardware, not PERCEIVED, subjective performance. And one more Tests Show Win XP Still Fastest for Multicore http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-xp-vista,6895.html ---- one could assume that newer versions of Windows would be better at taking advantage of symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP) systems. Well, yes and no. Tests conducted by InfoWorld show that Windows XP is still the overall performance king even in today’s quad core PCs. Not only does Windows XP outpace Windows Vista, it also does better than the current Windows 7 ---- If we´re talking virtualization here, it certainly helps if you can run more VMs at once of LEAN OSs rather than just one or two due to the bloat of the "new" microsoft OSs. (that is, of course, if the apps you want to run virtualized can be run on the older OSs, -that doesn´t happen much with Microsoft apps as it introduces APIs "planned obsolescence"... but is much more bearable if you run third party/opensource apps - ie I can run Java6 JDK (6u25) on win2k, still, along with OpenOffice and compilers like OpenWatcom or Jabaco). Of course, I don´t want to start an argument with you, and you´re free to use any OS you choose. I´m just trying to post the rationaly behind the numbers and my claims wrt performance, which all boil down to "less lines of code execute faster than more lines of code". :) Of course, if lines of code were your main concern, you may want to switch to DOS. Me, I will stick with what my measured experience has showed me: 64-bit Win 7 will out-perform Win XP in almost all cases, given the right hardware. Maybe that is what you lack? I don’t know, but it does seem rather absurd to suggest that Microsoft’s Win 7 performs less well, all things considered, than the older technology of Win XP, which I used extensively as well. Then again, your long-winded responses seem to contradict your point. Do you have extensive experience working with both systems?
wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ VBox-users-community mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vbox-users-community _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
