Windows XP Significantly Outperforms Vista, Tests Show

Information Week ^ | November 26, 2007 | Paul McDougall

[editor-surveyor]

Make the switch to 98SE, it’s the overall best OS for general use. You can get a disk on ebay cheap.

[rockrr]

“As long as Microsoft continues making crappy software, I’ll continue to have a job”

It’s a well-worn motto for me but no less valid than the first time I said it...;’}

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

I’m partial to AmigaOS, but I’m showing my age now. :-)

http://bbspot.com/News/2003/01/os_quiz.php

[whatisthetruth]

Thanks, will keep it in mind.

[groanup]

Thank you very much.

[GOP Poet]

Yeah and what burns me the most is that they try to force Vista on everyone. I cant even use directx 10. wtf?

Exactly! Still I ain't switching though [sic intentional].

[Swordmaker]

Re: the supposed Leopard data eating bug.

This supposed bug has been around for a while. It occurs when you use a third party haxie to activate an undocumented “Move” command that Apple had not activated. In most instances this hacked “Move” command works fine but IF you use it to move a file from one volume to another AND the target volume somehow got disconnected before the process was completed, the data was lost.

Apple has always only supported a “copy” command from one volume to another, leaving the original untouched for safety purposes. Some switchers from Windows wanted a Windows like “Move” instead to save them having to manually (but safely) delete the original. The 3rd party hack that created the “Move” command did it by copying the file to RAM, deleting the original, and the writing the file to the new location. The ONLY way you can invoke the undocumented “Move” command is to press Option Commad C. And the ONLY way to get bitten by the loss of data bug is to use that undocumented hack while moving the file to another volume AND lose the volume connection.

It’s not a big problem.

It does make good FUD headlines. . . just as it did when Tiger was released . . . And when Panther was released before that.

Apple did fix it in OSX.5.1... Forcing the system to not allow it to delete the file until the copy is complete.

[antiRepublicrat]

My wife doesn’t want a Mac — doesn’t like the new aluminum look — so we’ll be getting her a new PC (Damn!) despite the fact that she’s not too fond of Windows.

But she flat-out refuses to have Vista on it, so good for her. I didn’t want to have to support her on Windows anymore, but at least I won’t have to support her on Vista.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

When I was at M$, we were testing “Longhorn” (Vista’s Code name). About a year or so before release, our benchmarks were still showing that XP out-performed Vista in many significant areas — up to 1600%. Not sure how the shipped Vista stacked against XP, but our results were pretty depressing. We were ordered to put a happy face on 1600% slower as management was getting tired of Longhorn delays. I left to let them figure out how to spin "1600% slower" into a positive.

[antiRepublicrat]

Maybe the problem with vista is that the hardware tech is lagging behind.

I guess the question would be "behind what?" Behind the bloatware that is Vista? Yep. Behind technical abilities? Vista is only trying to copy the abilities and look of OS X, and OS X gets more features and faster on the same hardware with each subsequent release.

[Vinnie]

.but I have never even been on one nor have I ever witnessed anyone using one so I could get an idea of how they work.

Stop by a Apple store. Leave the wallet home.

You will see those guys/gals doing stuff on a computer that you only dreamed about.

Take your wallet on the second trip.

Been there, done that, got the Leopard spots to prove it. :^)

[antiRepublicrat]

It also can’t be loaded over Fat32, which is necessary for most engineering stuff.

Actually, it can be loaded on Fat32, and so can XP. It's just not generally a very good idea these days.

[antiRepublicrat]

Tech guy at Staples told me Vista needs 4 gigs memory to run faster than xp, but unfortunately no one offers a 3 or 4 gig pc.

It's a pretty complex matter, but your Staples guy is basically wrong.

If you get 32-bit Vista you're pretty much screwed for large amounts of memory. Straight-out, you can't address more than 4GB. But your video card memory and other things count against that limit, so in some configurations you'll get less than 3 GB available -- your extra memory is wasted. Then the apps can address at most 2 GB anyway.

For 64-bit Vista you can cram in as much memory as will fit, and you can use it.

And even though Staples may not sell computers with 3 or 4 GB RAM, most other manufacturers do, and you can add RAM to most systems to get that amount of memory anyway.

[VeniVidiVici]

It’s not a “supposed Leopard data eating bug”, it *is* a Leopard data eating bug. And no amount of lipstick you put on it is gonna make it anything other than a pig.

If Windows did this you guys would be all over it. ANY o/s should not lose data no matter what you do with the utilities within it.

Apple has admitted the problem is with the Finder and not some “third party haxie to activate an undocumented move command”. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907

Even rabid Mac websites have reported this and have pushed Apple for a fix which they appear to have done in the latest builds of 10.5.1.
If you read some of the reports you’d see that the Unix command mv worked.

If you have ref’s (links) to back up your claims or disprove mine, I’d love to look at them.

Suck it up and drive on. Better people know about it than trying to cover it up. The more popular OSX becomes, the worse it’s gonna get.

[VeniVidiVici]

And if anyone wants to watch the bug in action -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQmcnDIupEU

[Williams]

Thanks. Is 64 bit regularly available. I’m typing this on a laptop with an “AMD 64 Processor 3200+”. 64 bit by any chance?

[editor-surveyor]

XP can, I do it all the time, but not 2000.

[antiRepublicrat]

64 bit by any chance?

Yep, 64-bit. But unless your laptop is one of the latest you may be limited to around 2 or 3 GB RAM by the hardware. Check your specs.

[antiRepublicrat]

XP can, I do it all the time, but not 2000.

2000 will do it, even install on FAT16. But any previous version of NT won't read FAT32.

[Swordmaker]

My point was that it is NOT NEW with Leopard. It has been around since Panther and has been brought up again and again. Apple has NEVER documented the “Move” command. It is not listed on any of the file drop down menus or contextual menus. It was a command that existed but was unsupported by Apple. There were several hacks that added it to menus because some Windows switchers wanted it. Unfortunately, this would tend to make it easier to use the “move” command which may then result in the bug rearing its head.

I again repeat that it could only affect people in the extremely unlikely circumstance of using the undocumented Option Command C or using one of the hacked menus that had added the “move” command AND then had the destination drive become disconnected before the write had been completed. Quite frankly the only time I’ve heard about it is when a security firm sends out a warning after the latest release as though it were a new discovery. It isn’t.

Because it was such a low probability event, Apple never made it a high priority to fix. There were other issues that were more pressing. I know the “mv” unix command worked and I have no idea why it wasn’t used.

I have never heard of anyone being burned by this vulnerability in the wild. I suspect it has never been seen outside of a security lab. This has been discussed before.

Should have been fixed before now? Absolutely.

Apple finally addressed it — I suspect because of the issue of more users using external drives because of Time Machine.

I’m not trying to “cover it up,” I’m merely pointing out that under the Mac OS it is a pretty obscure vulnerability but that it has been known about since at least Panther (2003?). I was advocating its closure when it was brought up when both Panther and Tiger were released. I posted a thread on FR about it just after Leopard was released and the usual article’s appeared.