Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bug The Media Windows

Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud 451

Posted by timothy
from the that's-a-lotta-drama dept.
A few days ago, we ran word of a report alleging that Windows 7 consumed more memory than it should, based on a report from Devil Mountain Software; a followup post linked to Ars Technica's robust deconstruction of that claim. Now the story gets weird: Fred Flowers writes The original story quoted the company's CTO, Craig Barth on the issue. Now, InfoWorld editor in chief Eric Knorr has still more to add. From Knorr's blog at InfoWorld.com: 'On Friday, Feb. 19, we discovered that one of our contributors, Randall C. Kennedy, had been misrepresenting himself to other media organizations as Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software (aka exo.performance.network), in interviews for a number of stories regarding Windows and other Microsoft software topics. ... There is no Craig Barth.' Knorr's post goes on to say that Kennedy has been fired from his blogging gig at InfoWorld over this 'serious breach of trust,' and that his blog will be removed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud

Comments Filter:
  • by Rewind (138843) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:52PM (#31223534) Homepage
    Even with all the real things you can slam Microsoft for, some people feel the need to make things up. Reminds me of that pre-Vista paper by that (I think) NZ guy that was full of stuff that even then people who had the RC knew to be false. Sensational things get page views I guess.
  • Re:Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @07:56PM (#31223568)
    That's simple. Money.
  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:06PM (#31223632)

    >And the world goes on. Even if Win7 had huge memory problems, it wouldn't have stopped people from buying it.

    I doubt that. MS's Vista sales were hurt badly by its reputation. Most shops skipped over Vista completely. Apple got a little sales boost too.

    >Though I wonder how close this comes to an actionable legal issue?

    Christ, what ever happened to basic responsibility? Or buy beware? How about reading reviews before buying something or returning the product if you dont like it? Is lawsuit now the default action?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:06PM (#31223636)

    from what it looks like. Rather, it was about the identity of the blogger. It looks like he was a paid blogger for InfoWorld and a Windows performance analyst at the same time, and wrote the Windows memory consumption post under a pseudonym without disclosing the relationship to InfoWorld. It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong. Its conclusions are disputed, but that's a a separate issue. The issue is disclosure of its authorship.

  • Re:Reason (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:07PM (#31223648)

    Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good. Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good. Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.

  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:11PM (#31223676)
    To me it seems like there was fraud in both cases. He lied about his identity, and about how Win7 "hogs" memory.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:14PM (#31223716)
    The bottom line is that the articles contents *ARE* wrong. Any attempt to divert attention from that fact is disingenuous.
  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:21PM (#31223774) Journal

    No, he lied about his identity. He was just plain wrong about Win7. He's a liar and an idiot, but they're separate issues.

    Fortunately, my user CSS puts a big red [IDIOT WARNING] after any link to InfoWorld, so I didn't make the mistake of clicking on it and giving them some ad revenue.

  • Re:Reason (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:22PM (#31223782)
    Stupidity is a meta-motivation, not a motivation itself. Being stupid makes certain motivations possible.
  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:34PM (#31223876) Journal

    Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

    Nope, it was how they did it.

    Features that linux zealots always yell about, like proper admin/multiple user control, securing files and directories and so on.

    Yep, not only did they rip off sudo (which would've been fine), they managed to screw it up.

    It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives.

    I'm sure you'll tell me how...

    With su you give full control over the root account,

    Yep, just like UAC.

    with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account.

    WTF do you mean by "write it"? Did you mean, edit the sudoers file? Yeah, you could do it that way, I suppose. Or did you mean, enter your password? Nope, sudo will cache it for a certain length of time.

    UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use...

    Yet you haven't explained how it's different than the above.

    Win7 is more popular now because people have got used to these features.

    Nope, it's because Microsoft finally got it to work, and polished performance to where Win7 is faster than XP, whereas Vista was slower than XP.

    I never claimed, and I don't think anyone claimed, that all the design decisions in Vista were bad. No, the issue is that the Vista release, like most Microsoft products, was at best beta quality, more like alpha quality. So Vista was Microsoft's way of, yet again, using their consumers as beta-testers, while collecting some revenue to justify finishing the product and releasing it as Win7.

  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:41PM (#31223912)
    I really don't think it was a case of him merely "being wrong" about Win7. His software company sells a suite that is supposed to make Windows "run better". He had a direct motivation for lying about the performance of Windows. That's fraud in my book, and not merely "being wrong".
  • by Gregg Alan (8487) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:44PM (#31223932)

    What in the world are you doing wrong that you get UAC prompts when opening Word? I'd like to see example steps on how to make that happen.

  • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:53PM (#31224034)
    i call bullshit. you've never even used vista if your claiming it nags you to run word everytime.

    fact is linux fanbois have (rightly) bagged windows for a lack of user security for a long time, and when MS implemented it they bagged it like a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

    vista was no where near a flop and not at all a bad OS. i've had much much much worse experiences with linux distros.

    I think your just having to eat your words about win7, because it's a fucking good OS. it runs faster then vista or winxp, they've dropped the candy land fucked up theme and given it a slick interface.

  • Looks like karma (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:54PM (#31224042)

    And what about Ballmer/MS saying don't use linux because they violate 200 patents? All sorts of people have asked which patents, a simple question to answer, so if they are valid it can be fixed, yet from MS..crickets. One blog post versus the head guy of Microsoft spreading stories? How much have all the various Linux companies and Linux professionals all over the planet been hurt by his statements, and by MS actions over the years?

    I'm not defending this blogger at all, far from it, that was a shitty thing to do, but let's put this whole thing into some perspective. MS has been the big bully for years and years and years, they got to where they are now by some pretty questionable behavior, behavior that has not ever stopped, despite even governments getting on their case about it.

    We wouldn't even be reading about this blogger if these governments had done what needed doing years ago, bust that company up, shake them up hard so they stop being so "ethically challenged".

  • by asdf7890 (1518587) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @08:57PM (#31224070)

    Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

    This was one of the issues, yes, but not the only one and not even the most important one for many users. Vista's key problem was lack of drivers for a lot of hardware and some of the drivers available for common parts were not all that stable initially even though they passed relevant certififcation. Second came performance especially on "vista capable" (or "vista ready", which ever was the lower designation) machines (many reported significant issues on better kit too, though this situation improved greatly with service pack 1). UAC was thrid on the average user's list of hates though it sounded worse as it was usually the straw that started the major rant "it asked me for confirmation X times before very slowly failing to work because of driver problems!".

    UAC is not a bad idea, though it is not IMO particularly well implemented. They tried to so sudo but for the traditional Windows way of working (i.e. admin by default and adding blockers, where the sudo way starts unprivelaged). The result didn't fit as well as intended with Windows users processes and was sometimes overly naggy (three prompts for some file operations where sudo would need one escalation request) and just ended up being more OK buttons for clueless users to click, and to top it off it worked badly for people expecting a more linux/bsd/other way of doing thing - so essentually they failed to please either major group (i.e. neither those the feature was intended to protect nor those most likely to make a noise about such things were happy with it).

  • by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:05PM (#31224144)
    Ya, well, it was supposed to sound funnier...
  • Re:Reason (Score:2, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:08PM (#31224170)

    Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points.

    Using terms like "Mac fanboy's[sic]" is enough to be off topic. And it's not a joke when you next say, essentially, "but it's probably true".

    Your mom's a whore. I'm joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. You're a PC wanker, and if you mod me down, I'll just blame it on other PC wankers.

    See what I'm getting at?

  • by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:12PM (#31224214) Homepage

    Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

    I think a much bigger factor was that it was so long between XP and Vista, people had forgotten what XP was like at the start. When XP launched, it received many of the same complaints Vista received. It wasn't until a couple of service packs that people started to like XP. After a couple of service packs, Vista too was fine.

  • by tgd (2822) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:29PM (#31224358)

    sudo and the UAC are vastly different beasts.

    You may want to read up on winlogon, credential providers and user tokens, particularly relative to the UAC.

    The Vista and Windows 7 security model is vastly more sophisticated than out-of-the-box Linux implementations, and the UAC is related to that. Unlike su/sudo, the user does *not* transition to the administrative user, they switch between their administrative token, and the default neutered token, but in both cases other security policies can still be applied, but most importantly (especially where network security is concerned) *they still are themselves*. The network provider may or may not allow transparent use of the token across the network using the administrative token, depending on policies, but it *can*.

    The knee-jerk anti-Microsoft crowd on here tends to discount the sophistication of the Windows security model, but the reality is that its two decades more modern and more capable, particularly in networked environments, than the typical Linux system.

    That crowd could learn something by learning, in more detail, about the things they (incorrectly) discredit.

  • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:34PM (#31224394)

    Yep, not only did they rip off sudo (which would've been fine), they managed to screw it up.

    First of all, Windows has had "sudo"-equivalent features for a long time-- since Windows 2000, I believe.

    Secondly, how did they screw it up? It works fine for me.

    No, the issue is that the Vista release, like most Microsoft products, was at best beta quality, more like alpha quality.

    The problem was that the OS was release-quality, but the drivers from various third-parties was beta-quality for a good year after the OS was released. (And this despite over a year of technical preview releases... fucking lazy driver writers!)

    Did Vista have bugs? Yah, it had a bug that slowed down file copies. But they were all fixed, and if you used Vista about a year after it came out it would be fine.

    (With one disclaimer: Vista was never designed to run on Netbooks, which was a market Microsoft didn't anticipate while they were developing it.)

  • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:42PM (#31224482)

    If Microsoft decided to sue people for spreading false information about their products, slashdot would be really in trouble!

  • by jon3k (691256) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:44PM (#31224510)
    "The Vista and Windows 7 security model is vastly more sophisticated than out-of-the-box Linux implementation"

    SELinux [nsa.gov] is enabled by default on Fedora. I wouldn't call UAC "vastly more sophisticated".
  • by jon3k (691256) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:48PM (#31224534)
    From a technical perspective I think UAC was a huge step in the right direction. From a usability standpoint I think they really shot themselves in the foot. You're assuming the exact same people are saying both of these things, when that's obviously not the case. You create this abstract group of people ("linux fanbois") and then attribute every argument against Microsoft to them as if everyone is saying the exact same thing. They're not. It's a sweeping generalization.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:56PM (#31224592)

    He probably meant to post on a *site* where contributors know the difference between words like "sight" and "site".

  • by T-Bone-T (1048702) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:04PM (#31224662)

    If you know people that are getting UAC prompts all the time, you need to get with them and figure out exactly why. That shouldn't happen.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:15PM (#31224748)
    The management of Slashdot doesn't give a fuck about journalistic integrity. It's so obvious that it makes me sick.
  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:24PM (#31224800)

    those who haven't turned off UAC get the prompts several times a day - and I'm talking just for basic things like web browsing with IE.

    I have my UAC settings at maximum under Windows 7 and I don't see any UAC prompts for IE. I have also disabled downloading of ActiveX controls (signed and unsigned), so maybe that is the difference. The UACs might be when websites are trying to install controls.

    The only time that I get UAC prompts are when I am installing software, changing settings (like allowing a program through my firewall), and running some games (mostly older ones - and even then you can often say "No" and they will still run).

    The part that really annoys me is when I clean up my start menu. The multiple prompts for each file is a real pain. Oh, and the command line program "RunAs" no longer works properly. You run something as administrator but still get the "this program requires elevation" message - with no UAC to allow it to work. Running an entire cmd.exe window as administrator solves this.

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:37PM (#31224870) Journal

    Actually I would say Vista got slammed, and rightly so, for being buggy as shit and slow as ass. Let us just use my own experience with Vista, and to be fair I'm writing this from my Windows 7 machine which hasn't given me a lick of trouble.

    Oh, Vista, how I hated thee, let me count the ways. 1.-Play an MP3 and watch your network throughput grind to a halt. Yeah it was fun going back to the Win95 days where you didn't dare do squat while anything downloaded. 2.-Network shares that would just "disappear" and could only be fixed by a hard reboot, even though all the other machines could play nicely. yeah I really missed multiple daily reboots. 3.-Thrashing the hard drive. oh Lord, did it love to thrash the hard drive. Even on a machine with a 3.6GHz CPU, 2Gb of RAM, and a 7600GS for offloading the desktop, and all the fixes and tweaks found on the net, it thrashed the hard drive so bad it killed a brand new 200Gb drive. I had forgotten what thrashing was like. Thanks Vista!

    I could go on all day. To this day any Vista customers that walk through my shop want me to destroy it. The most asked question? "Is Windows 7 a POS like Vista? Because I have Vista and HATE IT!". Even with the latest drivers it is slow, bloated, buggy, just an all around piece of crap. I swear I had less trouble with WinME than I did with Vista, and that is saying a LOT.

  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:38PM (#31224872) Journal

    First of all, Windows has had "sudo"-equivalent features for a long time-- since Windows 2000, I believe.

    Vista forced everyone to actually use them, or something similar.

    Secondly, how did they screw it up? It works fine for me.

    It's possible it's been fixed by now, both from Microsoft's side and from the developers' side.

    I definitely remember getting five or six separate UAC prompts during the installation of a single piece of software.

    The problem was that the OS was release-quality, but the drivers from various third-parties was beta-quality for a good year after the OS was released.

    If you can do that, I can claim that Linux has excellent video and wireless support, it's just those lazy driver writers. If Linux gets blamed for these things, Windows does, too.

    But it's also not the drivers that made it take far longer to boot than XP, while Win7 took less time than XP. Little, measurable performance hits like that is a big part of why I didn't upgrade.

    Vista was never designed to run on Netbooks, which was a market Microsoft didn't anticipate while they were developing it.

    Linux was never "designed" to run on Netbooks either, it's just flexible enough that it doesn't matter.

  • by Nazlfrag (1035012) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:41PM (#31224914) Journal

    There's a real difference between Gutmann's early Vista analysis [auckland.ac.nz] and this smear campaign. Gutmann was trying to peer behind a veil of secrecy to find what Vistas content protection looked like and sure he missed the mark but it was an honest attempt to evaluate what the future held based on MS, ATI and other presentations, press releases and patents.

    Whereas this guy is clearly a shill out to smear MS based on blatant fabrication.

  • by The End Of Days (1243248) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:55PM (#31225024)

    To be fair, that's because the early versions of OS X weren't really ready. They were dog slow, ugly, and rife with incompatibilities. Based on observations, Apple likes to release stuff when it's at about 85% readiness, so they can look like saviors when they make improvements to it later.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:58PM (#31225076)

    Languages evolve, sorry.

  • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:14PM (#31225234)

    I definitely remember getting five or six separate UAC prompts during the installation of a single piece of software.

    First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that, but I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.

    But it's also not the drivers that made it take far longer to boot than XP, while Win7 took less time than XP.

    Who reboots their OS? My desktop is always on, and my laptop is always sleeping. I've always thought boot time was a stupid measure of... anything.

    Linux was never "designed" to run on Netbooks either, it's just flexible enough that it doesn't matter.

    So is Windows, what's your point?

  • Re:Yup... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:34PM (#31225398)
    Doesn't matter. In my book, caught submitting false data, all data should be tossed out. Everything this guy has ever claimed is now suspect.
  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:35PM (#31225414) Journal

    First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that,

    So you don't know, but you're sure it's not Microsoft? What kind of argument is that?

    I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.

    And how, exactly, could it be doing this in a way which would escape Windows' notice?

    Now, this doesn't happen much anymore, but I'd bet Microsoft was the one patching it -- even if they had to resort to the same kind of brutal hacks they have in the past to ensure backwards compatibility.

    Who reboots their OS?

    I do, every kernel upgrade. I'm sure you do when Windows Update tells you to.

    My desktop is always on, and my laptop is always sleeping.

    The fact that my laptop boots in about 20-30 seconds means I will actually shut it down at night, rather than sleeping it. It's also useful when I dual-boot -- I boot Linux most of the time, so the fact that I can reboot into Windows to play some games in maybe one minute instead of ten is a definite plus.

    Netbooks are also worth considering, here. If you've got a minimalistic UI which can save state easily -- like a web browser saving tabs (hint: Chrome OS) -- and you've got an OS that boots in seven seconds (and they're working on reducing that), why would you care about sleep? Hibernate is nice, but that kind of quick booting is going to be faster and lighter on disk usage.

    I've always thought boot time was a stupid measure of... anything.

    Boot time is the most obvious measure, because it's the one where I get a new Vista machine to work on, and it takes anywhere from 5-10 minutes to reboot, thus stretching maybe 20 minutes of Windows Updates and driver installs into an hour or more.

    I suppose I could talk instead about how much it was thrashing the disk, but that experience (plus the UAC irritations, which wasn't constrained to that one program) is why I stayed away.

    Contrast to Win7 -- boot time is fast, UAC is unobtrusive. I don't know what they changed, but it worked.

    So is Windows, what's your point?

    XP, apparently, not Vista.

  • by BrendaEM (871664) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:43PM (#31225478) Homepage

    Oh, what a POS!

    At some point, I am going to have to "upgrade" from XP to 7, and I am not looking forward to it. Superfetch is just not practical for coexistence heavy hitter video,/graphics/sound applications.
    If it weren't for Rhino3d, and a handful of games, I'd dump Windows entirely.

    Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:48PM (#31225500)
    More a fault of the App developer if you ask me. They just don't know better and assume asking for admin privs is best. It doesn't take long to figure out the windows security model, it's not terribly complex. Simple enough to figure out in a couple days, or if the Windows APIs are too complex for you, there are a number of libraries that simplify most security tasks.
  • by jonadab (583620) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:49PM (#31225518) Homepage Journal
    > Though I wonder how close this comes to an actionable legal issue?

    That would be foolish. Microsoft does NOT need to create more reasons for people to think of them as big bad bullies, whilst meanwhile transforming the discredited kook who criticized them into a victim and/or martyr in the eyes of (many of) the public and simultaneously directing more attention to his claims and lending them some apparent credibility that they don't otherwise have.

    Even if you win the case quickly, you still lose.

    The marketing department can handle this one just fine. I mean, the guy's already discredited, and they haven't even done anything yet. It's under control. No need to involve the legal department.
  • by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:53PM (#31225554)

    They might work and look kind of like UAC, but they are not in the same league in terms of security. When you allow SUDO to cache credentials, any process running under your credentials can elevate itself to root the next time you use SUDO. This vulnerability does not exist with UAC.

    Which is why you turn off caching of credentials if that bothers you. It's a security vs convenience issue, and for once Windows is on the "annoying but secure" side and common Linux configurations are on the "less annoying but less secure" side.

  • by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Monday February 22, 2010 @12:00AM (#31225606)

    What I forgot to say is that the difference is that "Sudo's behavior on that spectrum is configurable, while UAC's isn't." UAC forces you to the "ask every time end", which can be very annoying. The only times I've almost turned off UAC was when I was trying a bunch of configuration options which involved repeatedly elevating myself. A security system that makes users annoyed and persuades them to turn it off isn't so secure either.

  • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Monday February 22, 2010 @12:52AM (#31225966)

    And the world goes on. Even if Win7 had huge memory problems, it wouldn't have stopped people from buying it. Though I wonder how close this comes to an actionable legal issue?

    And yet, this being Slashdot, if this was reversed and it was anti-Apple we would have been flooded with comments of telling Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer to stop making this stuff up... Fun the differences that the company makes.

  • by elbiatcho1 (1554817) on Monday February 22, 2010 @01:00AM (#31226044)
    Then just disable the Superfetch service.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22, 2010 @01:07AM (#31226084)

    As has been explained countless times, yes Windows 7 uses more memory BUT it uses most of it as disk cache. It's more like Linux now compared to older versions of Windows. Using otherwise unused memory for disk cache is a good thing and does not affect application performance or available memory negatively.

  • Re:Good for them.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endo13 (1000782) on Monday February 22, 2010 @01:34AM (#31226238)

    I am somewhat mystified how Mr. Kennedy thought that spreading FUD would actually help his career. Interesting tact..

    It did, until those pesky things called "facts" got in the way.

  • Re:Not quite. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday February 22, 2010 @02:06AM (#31226400) Journal

    Instead of running specific processes as a more privileged user, it allows an Administrator to run processes as a LESS privileged user, with varying privilege levels.

    That's not significantly different. On a Unix system, init is run as root, and it then spawns other processes as varying users, with varying privilege levels. The "sudo" part is remarkably similar on both systems -- you're at a lower privilege than the process that started you, and now you want a higher privilege, so you have to get permission from the user in some way, and a higher-privileged program (like sudo or the UAC window) is going to do that for you.

    UAC also allows programs such as IE and Chrome to run at below-standard privilege levels ("protected mode" or "sandbox" mode),

    Sudo (or just setuid programs) also allows this, albeit in a somewhat kludgier fashion -- Chrome does sandbox processes on Unix. As far as I can tell, it does so at least with chroot, then drop permissions. There's talk of SELinux support, also.

  • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy@NOSPam.gmail.com> on Monday February 22, 2010 @04:42AM (#31227032)

    funny that is exactly what happened between OS X releases 10.2, 10.3 10.4, and 10.5 though the amount of speed increase was slightly less.

    The difference being that OS X's performance was so dismally bad even on blazingly fast hardware it didn't have anywhere to go but up.

    The same was not true of Vista. On the day it was released, you could buy a machine for under a grand that would run it well - something you could most certainly not say about OS X.

  • by LinuxAndLube (1526389) on Monday February 22, 2010 @05:28AM (#31227194)
    + 5, psychedelic for using enormously complex system and huge security benefits in the same sentence.

If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.

Working...