__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Saturday 29 July 2006 02:00 \__
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, baalbek
> <rcs@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:40:08 +0200
> <44caa058$0$8007$c83e3ef6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> What bugs me about Windows 2000 is the consistent disk thrashing (or
>> disk activity) that is going on... this cannot be good for my disk in
>> the long run.
I am not entirely sure, but switching the machine on and off
is probably more damaging than most things. It's rather easy
to retain uninterruptable uptimes with Linux.
>> I've got a similar laptop with Ubuntu installed, and the disk usage
>> sounds like smooth as silk in comparison...
Bring up some system monitors and you will see it for
yourself. When Linux does nothing (apart from, let us say,
play music), X has no CPU activity and memory is unaffected.
The display is being spewed at via the DAC from the frame
buffer (and that's just hardware driven) while Ethernet
routes away some packets. As it should be...
>> I really think the Redmond guys have lost it, they simply do not know
>> any longer what is going on in their OS... at best they code around the
>> problems as they occur...
>>
>> What a piece of shit operation Microsoft must be!
>
> Several mildly interesting subtopics here.
>
> [1] I don't know if it's Microsoft that's thrashing
> your disk -- directly. Indirectly, they might be, but
> I've caught my XP dualboot side in thrashing my disk.
> Trouble is, it was updating a file for the benefit of a
> virus scanner. So directly, Microsoft's in the clear,
> though indirectly, Microsoft is still responsible because
> their OS is such a piece of [censored] that they *need*
> such tools. :-P
Apparently they don't. They have recently made changes that
will drive third-party software out of business, so the
tools will be right there in the O/S (and charged for at the
rate of 50 US dollar per annum).
> [2] I frankly don't know what Microsoft Windows does in
> the way of faulting out dirty pages. (I'd have to look
> regarding Linux's handling thereof but at least with Linux
> I can. :-) ) With my luck, it's brain-damaged.
You brain hurts, again? *smile*
> [3] Standard recommendation from here is to ensure that
> your paging file is as contiguous as can be made, given
> the constraints on one's system -- ideally, one would
> dedicate an entire partition thereto but most systems
> only have one partition anyway -- and fixed in size so
> that Windows doesn't try to grow the silly thing, thereby
> fragmenting it. The default settings are pretty stupid. :-)
This mighty explain why Windows Vista, much like its
predecessor XP, is a real resource/memory hog. How much RAM
does it require as a bare minimum...?
> [4] If the box is doing nothing, Windows isn't too noisy. :-)
|
|
