4 ms·

> So you're a "programmer" who willingly and knowingly uses hardware with terrible random access performance. Why are you complaining about bad performance stem

> So you're a "programmer" who willingly and knowingly uses hardware with terrible random access performance. Why are you complaining about bad performance stemming from terrible random access performance, then? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. It's still a bed laid by Microsoft. I remember a time when Windows was quick and snappy on worse hardware. I wrote a fiction book in Corel WordPerfect on Windows XP using a machine from before 2000. I never realized computers could be slow during that experience. And let's do some math, shall we? The ISO of the current edition of Windows 10, as downloaded by me just now, is 5.5 GB. Let's assume that during an update, Windows replaces all of that 5.5 GB. Let's make this double pessimistic and say that the previous data must also be overwritten with zeroes, so that Windows has to write 11 GB of data to disk over the course of an update. Let's be triple pessimistic and assume also that my 7200 RPM disk uses 512-byte sectors. (It doesn't; it uses 4096-byte sectors.) Let's be quadruple pessimistic and assume that it's not just random access, but fully pessimistic access: the disk has to spin one full rotation for every access. Let's be quintuple pessimistic and assume that there are not contiguous sectors written; every single sector written requires a full rotation. In this, let's assume that a sector is written at SATA's usual 6.0 Gb/s. How long does it take to write the 11 GB to disk in those terrible conditions? The disk takes 8.333 milliseconds to spin to a new spot, and 6.0 Gb/s divided by 4096 (512 times 8 bits) seconds, which is 682.666 nanoseconds to write a sector. There are 21.48 million sectors in 11 GB. 21.48 million times the time it takes to spin to a new sector and write it is 179051 seconds or about 50 hours. Yikes. That's the exact worse case. Let's see how long it would take at full tilt (no extra spinning): 14.666 seconds. What you're saying is that it's not Microsoft's job to get an update as close to 15 seconds as possible; it's my fault that it takes longer than that. Really? Should I just be grateful that the update does not take 50 hours? I paid for this software! > Unjustifiable as it may be for Microsoft to optimize Windows for SSD system drives, a 1TB SSD can be had for ~$100 and a 500GB SSD can be had for ~$50. The age of exorbitantly expensive SSDs is long over, they have become accessible to the commons at large; so it makes some amount of sense for Microsoft to optimize for hardware resources that are widely available. Are HDD's not widely available anymore? That's news to me because I thought they were widely available. Which by your argument means that it makes sense for Microsoft to optimize for it. > You clearly haven't, because updates and other background tasks that built up during downtime got in your way. Even Windows 10/11 will still let you disable Windows Update if you have Professional or above. I clicked "Update and Shutdown" when I shut down because I'm not a complete idiot. Don't assume. > If you are using Home (because you're "cheap", as you put it yourself), why are you complaining again? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. I'm cheap with hardware that I don't stress. I'm not cheap with privacy. I have Professional. Don't assume. > To put it bluntly, you don't come across as someone worth respecting beyond that of common courtesy. You don't know what you're talking about, and you complain about situations that you willingly put yourself in. If you want to earn respect, please act the part. Ah, I see. Well, if I don't deserve respect, can you paste your CV here for me? Otherwise, you don't deserve that respect either because I don't know if you really know what you're talking about with Windows and hard drives. I mean, you're assuming a lot, and you're talking as though you know, but how do I know? > Anyone who knows about HDDs would quote the drive's SMART data in addition to any tests and other diagnostic data they might have. I'm not going to quote my disk's SMART data to you! That would be just like putting the full `uname` of my Linux install in my blog post, which I didn't do on purpose! > They would also know SMART and other diagnostic data are only broadly useful guesstimates about a drive's health and whether it might be on its way out. I also ran `ntfsfix`. Don't assume. > You don't appear to even know any of that, despite being a "programmer". And you have the gall to say Windows "will die" because you just don't know what you're doing? Give me a break. This appearance is based entirely off of things you assume. I'm okay with appearing like a stupid programmer to you; I can't fight assumptions. I'll spend my time "earning" respect from people who don't make assumptions.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>It's still a bed laid by Microsoft. I remember a time when Windows was quick and snappy on worse hardware. I wrote a fiction book in Corel WordPerfect on Windows XP using a machine from before 2000. I never realized computers could be slow during that experience. The fact you think Windows XP is "quick and snappy" shows you truly don't know what you're talking about. Windows XP was and still is infamous for being slow and bloated compared to its predecessors. The only versions of Windows that received universal acclaim were Windows 95, 98, and 2000. All other versions of Windows were either super janky (Windows 1 through 3.11) because of their era, or increasingly slow and bloated (ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 11, etc.). >Let's make this double pessimistic and say that the previous data must also be overwritten with zeroes, Because you're using an HDD, this does not apply unless you go out of your way and tell Windows to perform a full format (aka zero out the drive), and that isn't part of most update procedures. If you're using an SSD, it still doesn't apply in any practical sense because of how fast drive accesses are. >In this, let's assume that a sector is written at SATA's usual 6.0 Gb/s. The fact you would actually propose an HDD will saturate SATA3's bandwidth, even hypothetically, shows you have no idea what you're talking about. >What you're saying is that it's not Microsoft's job to get an update as close to 15 seconds as possible; it's my fault that it takes longer than that. Really? Should I just be grateful that the update does not take 50 hours? I paid for this software! Everyone (besides you, I guess) knows Windows is a slow and bloated piece of crap. Therefore, anyone (besides you, I guess) who cares about their Windows computer being fast uses hardware that is completely overpowered for the purpose. Bloated software? Throw more hardware at it. It's a dirty solution, but it works. Anyone who "cheaps out" on their hardware and expects Windows to be happy, especially in this day and age, is going to have a bad time. >Are HDD's not widely available anymore? That's news to me because I thought they were widely available. Which by your argument means that it makes sense for Microsoft to optimize for it. Both HDDs and SSDs are widely available, and there is no reason to not use an SSD for your system drive. Microsoft has an argument when they optimize for hardware that is objectively better and widely available. If you really want to cheap out but still not deal with HDD's terrible random access performance, grab a 250GB SSD for ~$20 and make that your system drive and use a big HDD for your bulk storage. >I clicked "Update and Shutdown" when I shut down because I'm not a complete idiot. Don't assume. Windows Update frequently continues to do things during and after the subsequent bootup following a shutdown to install updates. Anyone who has seen Windows Update do its thing should know this. >Well, if I don't deserve respect, can you paste your CV here for me? Otherwise, you don't deserve that respect either because I don't know if you really know what you're talking about with Windows and hard drives. I mean, you're assuming a lot, and you're talking as though you know, but how do I know? I've been using Windows for about 30 years and have messed with my fair share of hardware and software. I'm not going to bother giving you a resume since I'm not employed or looking to be employed by you. >I'm not going to quote my disk's SMART data to you! That would be just like putting the full `uname` of my Linux install in my blog post, which I didn't do on purpose! A drive's SMART data contains no personally identifiable information aside from maybe the drive's serial number, and that's easy to redact if it is a legitimate concern. That you don't seem to understand this demonstrates your ignorance. >I also ran `ntfsfix`. Don't assume. File system problems are not directly related to physical problems with the HDD. A healthy HDD could have faulty file systems on it, and an HDD on its death bed could have a healthy file system. A reduction in drive access speed is usually a symptom of impending physical failures in the HDD. Fragmentation in file systems does have an effect on data access times, but it's usually so minor that it's not even a footnote. Windows regularly performs defrags on HDDs by default anyway to help alleviate it further. >I'm okay with appearing like a stupid programmer to you; I can't fight assumptions. I'll spend my time "earning" respect from people who don't make assumptions. Whatever floats your boat, but an angry rant with no substance isn't going to reflect positively on you.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>It's still a bed laid by Microsoft. I remember a time when Windows was quick and snappy on worse hardware. I wrote a fiction book in Corel WordPerfect on Windows XP using a machine from before 2000. I never realized computers could be slow during that experience. The fact you think Windows XP is "quick and snappy" shows you truly don't know what you're talking about. Windows XP was and still is infamous for being slow and bloated compared to its predecessors. The only versions of Windows that received universal acclaim were Windows 95, 98, and 2000. All other versions of Windows were either super janky (Windows 1 through 3.11) because of their era, or increasingly slow and bloated (ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 11, etc.). >Let's make this double pessimistic and say that the previous data must also be overwritten with zeroes, Because you're using an HDD, this does not apply unless you go out of your way and tell Windows to perform a full format (aka zero out the drive), and that isn't part of most update procedures. If you're using an SSD, it still doesn't apply in any practical sense because of how fast drive accesses are. >In this, let's assume that a sector is written at SATA's usual 6.0 Gb/s. The fact you would actually propose an HDD will saturate SATA3's bandwidth, even hypothetically, shows you have no idea what you're talking about. >What you're saying is that it's not Microsoft's job to get an update as close to 15 seconds as possible; it's my fault that it takes longer than that. Really? Should I just be grateful that the update does not take 50 hours? I paid for this software! Everyone (besides you, I guess) knows Windows is a slow and bloated piece of crap. Therefore, anyone (besides you, I guess) who cares about their Windows computer being fast uses hardware that is completely overpowered for the purpose. Bloated software? Throw more hardware at it. It's a dirty solution, but it works. Anyone who "cheaps out" on their hardware and expects Windows to be happy, especially in this day and age, is going to have a bad time. >Are HDD's not widely available anymore? That's news to me because I thought they were widely available. Which by your argument means that it makes sense for Microsoft to optimize for it. Both HDDs and SSDs are widely available, and there is no reason to not use an SSD for your system drive. Microsoft has an argument when they optimize for hardware that is objectively better and widely available. If you really want to cheap out but still not deal with HDD's terrible random access performance, grab a 250GB SSD for ~$20 and make that your system drive and use a big HDD for your bulk storage. >I clicked "Update and Shutdown" when I shut down because I'm not a complete idiot. Don't assume. Windows Update frequently continues to do things during and after the subsequent bootup following a shutdown to install updates. Anyone who has seen Windows Update do its thing should know this. >Well, if I don't deserve respect, can you paste your CV here for me? Otherwise, you don't deserve that respect either because I don't know if you really know what you're talking about with Windows and hard drives. I mean, you're assuming a lot, and you're talking as though you know, but how do I know? I've been using Windows for about 30 years and have messed with my fair share of hardware and software. I'm not going to bother giving you a resume since I'm not employed or looking to be employed by you. >I'm not going to quote my disk's SMART data to you! That would be just like putting the full `uname` of my Linux install in my blog post, which I didn't do on purpose! A drive's SMART data contains no personally identifiable information aside from maybe the drive's serial number, and that's easy to redact if it is a legitimate concern. That you don't seem to understand this demonstrates your ignorance. >I also ran `ntfsfix`. Don't assume. File system problems are not directly related to physical problems with the HDD. A healthy HDD could have faulty file systems on it, and an HDD on its death bed could have a healthy file system. A reduction in drive access speed is usually a symptom of impending physical failures in the HDD. Fragmentation in file systems does have an effect on data access times, but it's usually so minor that it's not even a footnote. Windows regularly performs defrags on HDDs by default anyway to help alleviate it further. >I'm okay with appearing like a stupid programmer to you; I can't fight assumptions. I'll spend my time "earning" respect from people who don't make assumptions. Whatever floats your boat, but an angry rant with no substance isn't going to reflect positively on you.