MS Anti-Spyware: Norton Antivirus is a trojan!

[piratePenguin]

That's just someone's personal experiance, I rest my case, I have yet to see an objective well-reasoned argument against Windows's memory management. Just the fact that my work's computer is still usable despite having only 256MB of RAM and a big memory resident anti-virus program running is enough proof to me that it isn't as bad as you say.

But if you try what worker tried, you're fucked. Most people won't be doing that though, but some will, and the memory management will suck for them.

And er, if you're comparing memory management between Linux and NT, wouldn't it make sense to bring large things into memory?

[Lead Head]

Well I am not quite sure where this fits in, but on my dads laptop, it has only 256MB ram, and it runs UT2004 with 100MB aviailble ram, (ut2004 uses about 200-300MB ram)

[Aloone_Jonez]

But if you try what worker tried, you're fucked.

I've never had the need to so I'll probably never know but there again one day when I'm bored I might have a go. Worker wasn't even comparing Windows to Linux, he was comparing it with Mac OS which runs on PPC, which is a totally different architecture, therefore how do we know whether it's Windows being slow or it's PPC being being faster than x86?

And er, if you're comparing memory management between Linux and NT, wouldn't it make sense to bring large things into memory?

To have give Windows fair test you need to disable any memory ant-virus and use similar (preferibly the same) software and compare it with the other OS running on the same hardware.

[piratePenguin]

I've never had the need to so I'll probably never know but there again one day when I'm bored I might have a go. Worker wasn't even comparing Windows to Linux, he was comparing it with Mac OS which runs on PPC, which is a totally different architecture, therefore how do we know whether it's Windows being slow or it's PPC being being faster than x86?

Well I guess it's a shame Windows XP won't run on PPC GNU/Linux and Mac OS X run on PPC and x86.

To have give Windows fair test you need to disable any memory ant-virus and use similar (preferibly the same) software and compare it with the other OS running on the same hardware.

Yep. I might install XP here temporarily and open up some large image in the GIMP.

/me opens up the GIMP to create the largest image ever.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I'd also remove any malware first or even better do it on an install that's never had any malware before.

[piratePenguin]

I'd also remove any malware first or even better do it on an install that's never had any malware before.

If I remove the malware there'd be nothing left.

Only messin. Yea I'm looking for that damn XP CD.

[worker201]

Just for kicks, I was using Illustrator the other day in Windows, and I had the system monitor open. While saving a file (EPS, 85MB), processor usage peaked at 100% for like 45 seconds, and the memory used doubled, from like 320MB to 650MB. After the 45 seconds, things very slowly went back to normal, with Illustrator using not much more than 10% of the processor, and memory levels stayed at 320MB.

So this tells me one thing. Windows I guess has okay memory management, but it is strange. It doesn't seem to be using the paging file, it just uses RAM to back itself up. Which doesn't seem sane to me, making a backup of yourself in the same place as the original. Additionally, the average PC has pretty slow RAM. My Dell is about 3 years old, and even with 1.5GB RAM, it is slow RAM, so using the base RAM for paging seems hackish - some sort of specialized fastRAM would be better for this. (note please that I'm not exactly a hardware expert, this is just how things seem to be working to me, given the information I have available)

Also, I've done a lot of fudging around with processes in Linux, you know changing priorities and whatnot, and I have never seen a process take up 100% of cpu cycles. Really intensive programs, like transcode, or surface (a mathematical modeler) will spike to 90% at times, but will never have a sustained usage of more than 80%, while everything has equal priority. Giving transcode a nice level of 4 (making it take twice as long) drops this usage to like 40% with no spikes. Interestingly, at this level, the machine doesn't seem to take any kind of performance hit. So a loss of 40% of the processor doesn't make any difference at all to the rest of the computer. While saving in Illustrator, even Freecell will freeze up for the duration.

So what we have here cannot totally be blamed on anything, really. It's a combination of things. Memory management, default processor usage, RAM speed, and etc all play a part. The key, I feel, is the sum total of all the differences. The sum total is that Windows is shit, and Linux is good. The Linux system handles things in a more reasonable and useful way. I dare say that Windows is designed for people fucking around with email and the web and Word, while Linux seems to be designed for multiple hardcore processes - like compiling C, running httpd, backing up files, and fucking around with email and the web and vi.

Again, the effects of these differences aren't apparent in normal secretary situations. But I like to push my computer, having 20 tasks going at once. Windows just can't handle it. Linux can. And my really old Mac can too.

[Aloone_Jonez]

You still haven't said, are you running anti-virus on Windows?

[worker201]

Normally, I do, but I had it turned off during the test outlined above, because Illustrator crashed with a memory error.

Just a few minutes ago, the processor started grumbling and causing a typing delay, even though I only have SeaMonkey and Trillian open, so I killed Norton again.  Interestingly, I've never had problems like this before.