Will Windows 2000 consumer be faster on the computers of the year 2000 than Win 98 is on the computers of today, or Win95 was on the computers of 1995, or Win 3.1 during 1992? If you put Windows 3.1x on a Pentium 2 450mhz it would scream and blow away win 9x from a speed standpoint.
You can run an assembler program in DOS which blows the doors off of anything I've ever seen in Windows, save for an SMP machine running an NT demo at the Anaheim PDC, 1993.
I agree with Shulman that MSFT never bothered to realize the potential of an extended DOS with a text interface. Instead, they put everything into Windows, and the OS has simply gotten slower and slower while the machines have gotten faster and faster.
Admittedly, they make speed gains in some areas as they struggle forward with each new major iteration, but at the same time they lose performance in other areas while continuously adding to the overall overhead through never-ending feature bloat.
Why doesn't MSFT release something without so much overhead, something which, from an interface standpoint would be quick and thinly-featured? It would have only the features the user wanted, instead of a bunch of excess which slows the machine to a crawl.
Also, the desktop metaphor was always flawed. What is MSFT going to do about that in the Windows platform?
Why does MSFT support the obviously inferior USB over Firewire... NIH?
Why does my machine go haywire when I install win98, convert to FAT32, then uninstall win98?
Andy
|
