how efficient are Microsoft OSes in reality?

[astroview]

I'm not trying to nef here or anything, its just that people always say that anything MS makes is bad.

So could Win98 & Win2k have essentially run better while using less Hard Drive space, or are they at near peak efficiency already?

 

[urbantechie]

Anything 9x is suck. NT all the way. I never developed a liking for Linux or open source. MS is one of my most favoable companies.

 

[FOBSIDE]

MS products in general seem to have a lot of problems with stability but i think theyve started to remove that image with their win2k. if i could run mac os on a pc i would do it. linux and unix still seems to complicated for the every day user. for me its win2k or no ms os at all.

 

[kyoshozx]

Win2k has been pretty stable for me. I actually had it on for a week without the need to reboot it once. I turned it off finally because it was just too noisy to sleep with all those fans. I personally believe it's the best OS microsoft ever released.

 

[syf3r]

well, i think this thread has drifted away from its original question, which was asked toward ms os's efficiency and not their stability. when it comes to processors and smp, a dual-processor machine will most likely be less efficient than a single processor machine, though it will perform tasks more quickly. a windows nt machine running two processors will only use approximately 80% of the second processor, because the operating system is inefficient in that it requires 20% of the second processor just to manage that second processor. on the other hand an operating system like, say, Be, only wastes about 2% of the second processor because it was designed from sqaure one to support multiple processors, and supports n processors with equal efficiency.

-syf3r.

 

[lowtech1]

Any product after Dos 6.22 & MS word 2.0a is bad. I don't know too much about Win2k, but it is a bloated OS & NT4 is buggy as hell (SP1~SP6 and they can't fix the SSL security hole/problems & administration is sucks, worst is to try to use/admin it as a web server).

One great thing is that MS OS have loads of software & hardware that are compatible.

QNX is a great OS, but it doesn't have a strong software support

 

[BudB]

Bloat ten years ago and bloat today are two different things. Now a program that uses 10MB of disk storage would be a little utility. Times change, bloat changes. What matters for me now is stability. Speed is of little importance unless your a hobbyist or a rabid gamer where your trying for the ultimate.

 

[rc5]

M$ win9x doesn't support SMP at all.