4 ms·
They had to. They wanted to get into cloud and their own OS was optimized for desktops.
by INTPenis 3y ago
They had to. They wanted to get into cloud and their own OS was optimized for desktops.
- rmrfchik 3y ago"Optimized" what a strange choosing of word.
- INTPenis 3y agoHaha I felt the same way after I hit reply. I guess "focused on desktop" would be more apt. Either way it's not at all suitable for cloud native stuff.
- rmrfchik 3y agoMicrosoft neither focus their OS on desktop nor user. They focus on selling users tool spies on users. Almost any progress on Windows is microsoft centric. Even their main weapon (API) now is holstered.
- pjmlp 3y agoYou mean the Windows kernel that powers Azure, used to run those GNU/Linux instances? https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-os-platform-blog/azure-host-os-cloud-host/ba-p/3709528 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-os-platform-b...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throw555chip 3y agoAh, that explains the poorer performance when comparing to AWS or GCP, now it makes sense, thanks!
- pjmlp 3y agoThe financial performance looks quite alright to me, specially when looking at GCP 3rd place, and regular issues to stay relevant to big enterprises. When not AWS, it is Azure, so the performance isn't that bad to start with. Also AWS and GCP aren't running cloud instances of game consoles (which also use a variation of Windows), GCP one (Stadia) powered by Linux was a failure, nor are they running an AI service being used by millions of folks around the globe. Not bad.
- steve1977 3y agoIn my experience, Hyper-V is pretty much on par with ESX or Xen in this regard.
- Narishma 3y agoIf it's optimized for anything it's probably telemetry collection and ad delivery.