__/ [ thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Wednesday 16 May 2007 20:06 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Many operations in Vista are a step back in terms of speed. Here are some
>> examples:
>>
>> Copying files across LAN with Vista is deathly slow
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Copying files from my XP video capture pc to my Vista pc is 3 times
>> | slower than copying from my XP video capture PC to my old XP PC.
>> `----
>>
>> http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/109009593831
>
> I've heard similar stories about Vista network perfomance being much
> slower, and it has me wondering if anti-Samba measures in SMB2 are
> to blame. According to Jeremy Allison, MS had the goal of breaking
> Samba compatibility as the driving force behind SMB2 (which I believe
> was supposed to ship with Vista). It complicates the protocol and
> adds additional necessary transaction states, resulting in extra
> network packets and slower response times.
>
> And some people wonder why we make such a big deal out of open
> standards, open source, and vendor neutral solutions.
>
> Thad
Yes, and for the record, here is the audiocast.
FLOSS Weekly 14: Jeremy Allison of Samba
,----[ Quote ]
| 'In the section of the interview from around 33m30s to 39m00 Jeremy
| Allison reports how he was told that the Microsoft team implementing
| SMB2 were ordered to "f**k with Samba".'
`----
http://www.twit.tv/floww14
A recent blog post indicated that Longhorn (renamed "Server 2008", AKA
"shipping is a feature, too") breaks Samba.
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Digits 772-777 of Pi are 999999
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:00am up 18 days 9:22, 6 users, load average: 1.12, 1.01, 1.15
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
