Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #688255 > unrolled thread

How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time!

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 21:30 +0000
    Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 17:31 -0400
      Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-27 21:43 -0400
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-03-28 02:15 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-09 19:00 +0000
    Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-27 22:07 -0400
      Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 04:49 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-03-28 05:20 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-28 08:27 -0400
          Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 20:41 +0000
            Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-28 17:35 -0400
    Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-03-28 16:23 +0000
      Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-28 18:58 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-03-28 19:52 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-28 17:00 -0400
          Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-28 20:39 +0000
            Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 21:25 +0000
              Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 01:08 -0400
                Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:49 +0000
                  Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:25 -0400
                    Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-30 06:21 +0000
                  Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-29 10:40 +0000
                Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 12:05 +0000
                Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-03-29 13:14 +0000
                  Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-29 11:46 -0400
                    Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-31 06:18 +0000
              Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-29 10:35 +0000
                Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-30 06:22 +0000
            Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 00:55 +0000
              Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-29 11:17 +0000
                Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 11:58 +0000
                  Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-30 14:39 +0000
        Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 20:40 +0000
          Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-29 11:26 +0000
            Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 22:21 +0000
              Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The Time! Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-30 14:23 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#688420

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:25:55 -0400, Paul wrote:

> The reason the memory amount is lower, is the malloc-linux program has
> to be stopped before the OOM-killer is triggered. The same code on
> Windows, simply exits when the last malloc call fails to allocate
> memory.

You know you can configure the memory-allocation algorithm on Linux, 
right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688359

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:08:30 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
> > I don't know if the message is getting through yet,
> > but Windows has every feature Linux has. Why do you think they hired
> > 7000 developers ?
> 
> Mainly to get in each other?s way, judging from their (lack of) 
> productivity.
> 
> > Windows has System Read cache and System Write cache.
> > It has System Read cache in Win2K. System Write cache came later.
> > 
> > The System Read cache is like every other implementation.
> 
> Doesn't seem to be. The usage of RAM in the cache seems to interfere with 
> regular applications' use of RAM, in a way that doesn't happen under 
> Linux.

  "seem"? "seems"? Do you have an actual argument!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688369

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-03-29, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Linux can use memory for filesystem cache that can be quickly dumped and 
>> reallocated for regular application use. This is why the memory display 
>> distinguishes between “free” memory and “available” memory -- the latter 
>> includes both free memory and cache space.
>> 
>> Windows isn’t so good at this, let’s face it.
>> 
>
> I don't know if the message is getting through yet,
> but Windows has every feature Linux has. Why do you
> think they hired 7000 developers ? They're running
> Xerox machines all day long. the task bar descends
> just like MacOS. What a coincidence.
>
> Windows has System Read cache and System Write cache.
> It has System Read cache in Win2K. System Write cache
> came later.
>
> The System Read cache is like every other implementation.
> Unix had it, MacOS had it (on my G4 in 10.3), Linux has it,
> Windows has it (since Win2K at least). At the time this
> happened, all the OS companies were running their Xerox
> machines and copying shit from one another. In all of them,
> memory is not booked, and as Frank would note, "memory is to be used",
> and the ideal case happens with System Read caches, on all systems.
> They give the memory back, any time you need it.
>
> System Write caches are booked. And they have percentage
> limits on how much memory they will book. System Write caches
> are a non-ideal case, and if you're good, you can "jam" an OS
> such that it freezes. I managed to do that once, realized
> the mistake I'd made, but I couldn't type fast enough to
> stop it :-/ OS froze. Had to reboot.
>
> Use a little imagination please. Come out of your cave.
>
>    Paul

My experience, is that if you're using apps which also decide to eat
ram, then the system read cache is far less effective.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688371

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:08:30 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in
<vs7rnu$drnu$1@dont-email.me>:

> On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Linux can use memory for filesystem cache that can be quickly dumped
>> and reallocated for regular application use. This is why the memory
>> display distinguishes between “free” memory and “available” memory --
>> the latter includes both free memory and cache space.
>> 
>> Windows isn’t so good at this, let’s face it.
>> 
>> 
> I don't know if the message is getting through yet,
> but Windows has every feature Linux has.

I agree with almost everything you say, Paul, but if what
you say in this last sentence is the case, one wonders why
Linux is available as a subsystem under Windows?

For that matter, why does Azure run on Azure Linux, a Microsoft-designed
Linux distribution, rather than Windows Server?

But!  I think Lawrence is getting ahead of himself -- for general
user applications, Windows is fine with regard to
performance -- it's the other matters that give one
pause for thought, such as (for example) privacy and ads.

>  Why do you think they hired
> 7000 developers ? They're running Xerox machines all day long. the task
> bar descends just like MacOS. What a coincidence.
> 
> Windows has System Read cache and System Write cache.
> It has System Read cache in Win2K. System Write cache came later.
> 
> The System Read cache is like every other implementation.
> Unix had it, MacOS had it (on my G4 in 10.3), Linux has it,
> Windows has it (since Win2K at least). At the time this happened, all
> the OS companies were running their Xerox machines and copying shit from
> one another. In all of them,
> memory is not booked, and as Frank would note, "memory is to be used",
> and the ideal case happens with System Read caches, on all systems. They
> give the memory back, any time you need it.
> 
> System Write caches are booked. And they have percentage limits on how
> much memory they will book. System Write caches are a non-ideal case,
> and if you're good, you can "jam" an OS such that it freezes. I managed
> to do that once, realized the mistake I'd made, but I couldn't type fast
> enough to stop it :-/ OS froze. Had to reboot.
> 
> Use a little imagination please. Come out of your cave.
> 
>    Paul



-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.14.0 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
   "I'm not fat, just horizontally disproportionate."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688374

On Sat, 3/29/2025 9:14 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:08:30 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in
> <vs7rnu$drnu$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Linux can use memory for filesystem cache that can be quickly dumped
>>> and reallocated for regular application use. This is why the memory
>>> display distinguishes between “free” memory and “available” memory --
>>> the latter includes both free memory and cache space.
>>>
>>> Windows isn’t so good at this, let’s face it.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know if the message is getting through yet,
>> but Windows has every feature Linux has.
> 
> I agree with almost everything you say, Paul, but if what
> you say in this last sentence is the case, one wonders why
> Linux is available as a subsystem under Windows?
> 
> For that matter, why does Azure run on Azure Linux, a Microsoft-designed
> Linux distribution, rather than Windows Server?
> 
> But!  I think Lawrence is getting ahead of himself -- for general
> user applications, Windows is fine with regard to
> performance -- it's the other matters that give one
> pause for thought, such as (for example) privacy and ads.

I don't know why there is a Bash Shell.

I think the project was done "because they could".
It might have been as simple as that. It's a capability.
It's not monetized. The "average" Windows user is unlikely
to have a clue it is present, and even if they were
remotely interested, they'd never get it installed.
It is not a fully automated project.

I think it's part of a cover story, to hide the *real* plan.
After all, they hired Poettering. And the velocity of deployment
of WSLg, hints that they've also got some other damn good people.
Not the normal Wallys. *Why* do they have people like that ?

Now that I understand their pattern of "indirection" (a technique
I've seen back when I used to play sports), it's easier to guess
that something you're seeing, is a clever cover story. Like
the "FrameServe" project, that doesn't serve frames :-/ Funny,
guys.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688494

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:46:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

> After all, they hired Poettering.

There does seem to be a general feeling that Windows needs something
like systemd.

<https://github.com/Jamesits/SvcGuest>
<https://github.com/sammko/winbootctl>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688358

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> Linux can use memory for filesystem cache that can be quickly dumped and 
> reallocated for regular application use. This is why the memory display 
> distinguishes between ?free? memory and ?available? memory -- the latter 
> includes both free memory and cache space.
> 
> Windows isn't so good at this, let's face it.

  <barf!>

  See Paul's response. Bettter limit your comments to stuff you actually
know something about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688421

You first.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688336

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3/28/2025 2:58 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> > Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:30:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> >> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Microsoft is trying to reduce the time it takes to start Office on
>> >>> Windows, by moving part of the work to the time when you boot your PC
>> >>> <https://www.theverge.com/news/637469/microsoft-office-speed-boost-faster-launch>.
>> >>>
>> >>> What a wonderful idea: make an app start faster by making your machine
>> >>> take longer to boot. What if other major Windows apps did the same
>> >>> thing? Wouldn?t it be cool to have all these apps lurking in the
>> >>> background, already running, chewing up memory and CPU cycles?
>> >>
>> >> Look under the Startup Apps in the task manager and you'll find a
>> >> whole load of things that run at startup. Mine includes the Dymo label
>> >> printer app, Copernic desktop search and the app that monitors the
>> >> battery backup.
>> > 
>> >   Exactly, nothing new. But perhaps for Lawrence's - apparently - stone
>> > age OS, which doesn't know how to have such 'Startup Boost' (and
>> > similar) programs without "chewing up memory and CPU cycles", when
>> > they're "lurking in the background, already running" [1]. That problem
>> > was already solved at least some four decades ago.
>> > 
>> > [1] Of course his OS *can* do that. After all, it's Unix-like, isn't it?
>> 
>> A number of the SVCHOST, don't typically use cycles. You can check
>> that with Process Explorer. If elevated as Administrator, it can
>> do profiling of processes, and it shows a cycle count for the
>> item you're tracing. And many SVCHOST are zero. The ones like
>> Windows Update support, would not be zero.
>
>   Exactly. In any sane OS, a suspended/blocked/<whatever> process
> doesn't use any CPU cycles, period.
>
>> Quiet processes still use memory. A suspended Metro App could still
>> take up memory.
>
>   A lesson (not to you) from the very old days: Memory is there to be
> 'used'. You didn't buy it for nothing. Memory is allocated to all kinds
> of things, but that doesn't mean it's in active use and doesn't mean
> that it can not be freed/re-used when needed.
>
>   Ever since BSD Unix, memory could be filled upto 90%  (minfree?) and
> that was A Good Thing (TM).
>
>   On my Windows systems, Task Manager normally reports a 'Memory usage'
> of some 50%, but I assume/hope it's 'lying' and doesn't include memory
> which is allocated but not actually in-use by a process. I.e. I start
> and exit an editor. The memory used by that program is not released. Is
> it counted in 'Memory usage' or not?
>
>>		  Once it is in the run state, the event loop will be
>> running, and any time the OS sends an event, the event loop "eats it"
>> and that takes a few cycles at a minimum.
>
>   Of course, if a process has to do something, it uses CPU, but when
> it's 'idle', it doesn't.
>
>> The OS has a Memory Compressor (it can only be seen in Process Explorer,
>> not in Task Manager). If under extreme memory pressure,
>> the MS Office Metro.App could have its actual (occupied) memory
>> compressed to half the size.
>>
>> The OS does have a few tricks, to conserve resources.
>> 
>> But also at times, is a pig. Nobody is perfect :-)
>> There is still lots of room for improvements.
>
>   Yes, when the memory pressure becomes too high, any system will
> experience trashing, but an idle process - which is the topic of the
> (non-)discussion - should present no problem. Can't fit it? Page/swap it
> out. 'Problem' solved.
>
> [...]

The problem with the "memory is there to be used" argument is when devs
just then use all your memory, because they think its spare.  But memory
that YOUR app takes, is less memory for other apps.  Sure, use spare RAM
for caching, like Linux does, that is better than leaving it idle, but
you must be able to DROP the RAM when someone more important needs it.
The problem with this Windows approach, is these processes remain in
RAM, regardless of whether you need them or not.  This IS a waste
because it blocks that RAM from being used for something where it could
deliver more of a benefit to the user.  Also, preloading slows boot
time.  Swapping it out is counter productive.  The best optimisation is
slimming the program down.

Linux does the right thing here IMO.  Store what has been accessed from
the filesystem in RAM, but drop it when needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688360

Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]

  Ignored. This - and your response - is about both OSs.

> On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> The problem with the "memory is there to be used" argument is when devs
> just then use all your memory, because they think its spare.  But memory
> that YOUR app takes, is less memory for other apps.

  The "memory is there to be used" argument is about that the *OS*
should 'use' (allocate) nearly all memory in the machine. Unallocated
memory is wasted memory. The argument is *not* about applications.

>						       Sure, use spare RAM
> for caching, like Linux does, that is better than leaving it idle, but
> you must be able to DROP the RAM when someone more important needs it.

  That's exactly what I described. If it's still allocated, for example
for a program whose previous invocation (i.e. process) has ended and
something needs memory, but there is no unallocated memory left, the
still allocated memory gets re-used, i.e. the program content gets
dropped. That's what any sane OS does. That's what BSD Unix did four
decades ago and what any modern OS still does.

> The problem with this Windows approach, is these processes remain in
> RAM, regardless of whether you need them or not. This IS a waste
> because it blocks that RAM from being used for something where it could
> deliver more of a benefit to the user.

  You're confusing a program with a process. You can drop a program
which is no longer in use, i.e. has no process associated with it, but
you can't drop a still 'active' (even if suspended) process (at least
not without the cooperation of the process/program).

>					  Also, preloading slows boot
> time.

  The article referenced in the OP doesn't give any details on this
particular 'Startup Boost task'. As it's a scheduled task, it can only
run *after* boot. so it doesn't slow *boot* time. Considering how other
similar tasks work, they normally run after login (no use having a
user-level program when there's no user) and are normally schedulled
with a delay. As noted in the article, the 'Startup Boost task' will not
be enabled on small (less than 8GB) memory systems and can be disabled
by an option in Word (Word only?).

>        Swapping it out is counter productive.  The best optimisation is
> slimming the program down.

  Yes, paging or swapping is the last resort when memory pressure is
(too) high.

> Linux does the right thing here IMO.  Store what has been accessed from
> the filesystem in RAM, but drop it when needed.

  Windows - and, as Paul noted, all other OSs - does the exact same
thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688365

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-03-29, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>
>   Ignored. This - and your response - is about both OSs.
>
>> On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> The problem with the "memory is there to be used" argument is when devs
>> just then use all your memory, because they think its spare.  But memory
>> that YOUR app takes, is less memory for other apps.
>
>   The "memory is there to be used" argument is about that the *OS*
> should 'use' (allocate) nearly all memory in the machine. Unallocated
> memory is wasted memory. The argument is *not* about applications.
>

I've seen it used in the context of applications elsewhere, on multiple
occasions.

>>						       Sure, use spare RAM
>> for caching, like Linux does, that is better than leaving it idle, but
>> you must be able to DROP the RAM when someone more important needs it.
>
>   That's exactly what I described. If it's still allocated, for example
> for a program whose previous invocation (i.e. process) has ended and
> something needs memory, but there is no unallocated memory left, the
> still allocated memory gets re-used, i.e. the program content gets
> dropped. That's what any sane OS does. That's what BSD Unix did four
> decades ago and what any modern OS still does.
>
>> The problem with this Windows approach, is these processes remain in
>> RAM, regardless of whether you need them or not. This IS a waste
>> because it blocks that RAM from being used for something where it could
>> deliver more of a benefit to the user.
>
>   You're confusing a program with a process. You can drop a program
> which is no longer in use, i.e. has no process associated with it, but
> you can't drop a still 'active' (even if suspended) process (at least
> not without the cooperation of the process/program).
>

If a program preloads itself, it is a running process, which remains
running, as you said, until it decides to terminate.  On the other hand,
caching by the kernel is more dynamic.

>>					  Also, preloading slows boot
>> time.
>
>   The article referenced in the OP doesn't give any details on this
> particular 'Startup Boost task'. As it's a scheduled task, it can only
> run *after* boot. so it doesn't slow *boot* time. Considering how other
> similar tasks work, they normally run after login (no use having a
> user-level program when there's no user) and are normally schedulled
> with a delay. As noted in the article, the 'Startup Boost task' will not
> be enabled on small (less than 8GB) memory systems and can be disabled
> by an option in Word (Word only?).
>
>>        Swapping it out is counter productive.  The best optimisation is
>> slimming the program down.
>
>   Yes, paging or swapping is the last resort when memory pressure is
> (too) high.
>
>> Linux does the right thing here IMO.  Store what has been accessed from
>> the filesystem in RAM, but drop it when needed.
>
>   Windows - and, as Paul noted, all other OSs - does the exact same
> thing.

I may be a little out of date. I recall stuff like this back in the mid
2000's, so maybe I'm misreading how things are working today.

I do know, from practical experience, having the exact same laptop at
work with Window 10 and with Debian at home, that Windows in general
seems to perform worse.  There are other variables at play here, of
course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688450

Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2025-03-29, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> >> Linux does the right thing here IMO.  Store what has been accessed from
> >> the filesystem in RAM, but drop it when needed.
> >
> >   Windows - and, as Paul noted, all other OSs - does the exact same
> > thing.
> 
> I may be a little out of date. I recall stuff like this back in the mid
> 2000's, so maybe I'm misreading how things are working today.
> 
> I do know, from practical experience, having the exact same laptop at
> work with Window 10 and with Debian at home, that Windows in general
> seems to perform worse.  There are other variables at play here, of
> course.

  We can fully agree on that. Lean-and-mean is not one of Windows'
virtues.

  We (should) just use what fits our needs best. I've professionally
supported, managed and used Unix/UNIX systems for over two decades and
still use Cygwin - a Linux-like environment - under Windows, the best of
both worlds for *me*.

  OS wars are silly, especially if The Other OS (TM) doesn't run the
software one needs/wants.

  (AFAIC.) EOD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688323

The “stone age” OS is the one that needs that nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688361

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> The 'stone age' OS is the one that needs that nonsense.

  Try to read for comprehension. The 'stone age' OS is yours, not mine.
(And see and read the footnote.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688391

Precisely my point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688448

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> Precisely my point.

  Apparently you *still* didn't read/understand the footnote.

  EOD.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web