3 ms·
Specifically, for years Microsoft colluded with Intel to make systems which consumed more memory and CPU power such that an 'upgrade' cycle would be required.
by xyzzyz 15y ago
Specifically, for years Microsoft colluded with Intel to make systems which consumed more memory and CPU power such that an 'upgrade' cycle would be required.
It does not seem right. Recent Ubuntu releases will not perform better on older machines than Windows 7, and I seriously doubt that there's a pact between Canonical and Intel as well.
- klipt 15y agoIt's really just a generalization of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law "Work expands so as to fill the time [or other resources] available for its completion."
- ChuckMcM 15y agoI think this is a large part of it. When you look at something like Compiz and you say "well that is nice and cool and all but its not really contributing to the work being done." Its eye candy that can be done because we have a GPU sitting there otherwise idle. There is a story, probably apocryphal at this point, that a long time ago in what seems like a different universe, an engineer working on the Xerox Star system, was looking into why it was bogging down. It was reported there were nearly 800 subroutine calls between a key stroke and a letter was rendered on the screen. They managed to cut that number in half and the performance improved by a third. Mostly it was abstractions, People always find uses for every available CPU cycle, as predicted, now we're entering a time when you will need to optimize something to get more cycles.
- ranit8 15y agoWindows Vista was a large jump in resource usage. At the time Microsoft was building it, it was expected that Intel would bring the Netburst architecture to at least 4 GHz in the near future. They didn't, and the next release of Windows is not so careless on resources. Coincidence?