Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SphinUX OS Claims To Be ~150% Faster Than GNU/Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    I give a shit about ram usage. No it's not normal for a text editor to use 1.5 GB RAM (looking at you eclipse you fucking pig). Also, as a programmer, I care about not using RAM unnecessarily. You would care also if all your programs would start taking 10 times as much memory, or 100 times.
    WTH are you doing to poor eclipse? I'm running eclipse right now, and its using 180.0 KiB + java 511.7 MiB.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by tomato View Post
      people that run something besides the browser and people that run graphical terminal servers do care
      Once Firefox gets into its 4th GB, I care too.... Seriously... WTF is Firefox's problem?

      ... and no, Chrome isn't any nicer on memory.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        When exporting an obfuscated apk with proguard eclipse crashes running out of memory so I had to give it around 2GB RAM for the exporter to work.
        Weren't you the guy who bashed Mono for performance and memory usage? Why using APK which is much slower and Java/Eclipse that is more memory hungry than MonoDevelop!?

        Why not using C++/NDK if you care that much about performance and openness? Seems someone has a double standard... saying just to others to not use Microsoft/C#/Mono but he uses the equivalent Oracle/Java/a JVM developped mostly in the closed.

        Comment


        • #64
          positive reviews

          let's look at some of the users that gave positive feedback.

          liamhenderson - invalid user
          toufic - feedback given 2013-01-25 (same day as sf registration)
          jwg33k - feedback given 2013-01-20 (registration one day before)

          sorry, not convinced

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            I wasn't bashing C# because it used more memory than a C++ equivalent application but because it was made by Microsoft and they can't be trusted to not cook up something.
            But wait! Microsoft is a large, professional corporation with LOTS of people who get PAID to create QUALITY products! There's no basement dwellers on microsoft! How can you say such things? According to your logic, microsoft should be shitting pure gold!

            You're the guy who's using windows because it "just works", who doesn't care about ethics because hey, the only way to "get in power" is to be unethical, and now here you're saying you don't trust microsoft after all...

            Try to keep track of your own trolling!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              BeOS, Haiku, DOS are much slower than bigger operating systems. It's because of architecture not because of being small or not.
              What the hell are you smoking?
              Anyone who has tried BeOS, Haiku or FreeDOS will instantly tell you about how fast they are compared to other OS's.
              Methinks you haven't tried any of these, or at least haven't tried trolling before and giving it a shot for the first time.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                What the hell are you smoking?
                Anyone who has tried BeOS, Haiku or FreeDOS will instantly tell you about how fast they are compared to other OS's.
                Methinks you haven't tried any of these, or at least haven't tried trolling before and giving it a shot for the first time.
                It depends a lot on what you mean by "faster". Those OS's will certainly boot faster. Whether they'll run benchmarks faster is unlikely, but i'm sure it depends on the benchmark.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  It depends a lot on what you mean by "faster". Those OS's will certainly boot faster. Whether they'll run benchmarks faster is unlikely, but i'm sure it depends on the benchmark.
                  It depends on the benchmark, too. Typical desktop users will "feel" latency much faster than other things. BeOS might be snappier (less latency) at typical tasks but maybe file copying or the like is significantly slower.

                  You see the same thing in Linux with the competing CPU/IO schedulers. An algorithm that maintains maximum file transfer bandwidth on spinning media is pretty different than an algorithm for minimimizing file access on an SSD, after all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                    Once Firefox gets into its 4th GB, I care too.... Seriously... WTF is Firefox's problem?

                    ... and no, Chrome isn't any nicer on memory.
                    You're making a common mistake, which is assuming Firefox and Chrome uses that "because", and that there's no way to avoid it (in other words, you probably think that if you use it in a 2GB machine, you'll be unable to run it). Both Firefox and Chrome uses an amount of RAM, which in the default config depends on how much physical memory you have, as cache. This is for running faster. Instead of redownloading everything or having to load from disk, they load the on-disk cache on memory as soon as possible, so it will take only ~100-200 cycles to get to process it when needed, instead of the ~10.000 needed when having to read from disk, or the 'I have no idea how many but it's really likely that it's at least 10 times than to disk' to get it from the web.
                    Point is, there are leaks, but that consumption is mostly for something actually useful for the user.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                      What the hell are you smoking?
                      Anyone who has tried BeOS, Haiku or FreeDOS will instantly tell you about how fast they are compared to other OS's.
                      Methinks you haven't tried any of these, or at least haven't tried trolling before and giving it a shot for the first time.
                      Fast is in many ways relative and even can be measured, all of these OSes are not as fast and let me say why:
                      - Haiku and BeOS are micro-kernels that work with Servers that offer Services in the OS. The intercommunication between these systems is slower than a hybrid OS like Windows NT, OS X or Linux. All these OSes merged the subsystems where it makes sense, and loads as modules parts that are not that important. So a kernel heavy benchmark (with multiple context switches) will not work (that) well on BeOS/Haiku
                      - Haiku had in the past problems compiling with newer GCCs (and it still doesn't compile as far as I know with the 4.7 release) so the generated code on these platforms matches the compiler capabilities. So people using newer compilers will get all the optimizations of these newer compilers
                      - bigger OSes offer optimized DLLs/libSOs for the target instructions set, and a compatibility one that is fast enough. Look if you use Windows XP for example that you have p3.sys, or athlon.sys as parts of the kernel that are loaded (based on the machine's instruction set). Similarly LLVM (which is in fact is used real time compiler) can optimize shaders for machines that do not support specific operations in OS X/Linux (as part of Gallium).
                      - BeOS, and Haiku support 32 bit code, and big OSes that support 64 bit offer the capability of 64 bit processing, which again in (mathematical) benchmarks at least, are faster code

                      If you mean about: how fast it boots, the older OSes many times do recognize much less hardware and they need to load less services because they don't support much more of the functionality the new OSes support. BeOS has similar features with Windows 2000, and this OS would load fairly fast by today's standard, but it would not offer anti-aliasing on fonts (I know that Haiku offers this, but Haiku is still a much less featured than modern Linux/Windows), many features that many application offer (and they have to be loaded on disk), including some that are just for the sake of open standards and easier to be debugged (like configuration files written in Xml format). All these features slow the OS starting time, but 1 minute to boot was true from Windows 95 era, and the spinning disks at least did not increase by as many orders of magnitude the access time (compared with disk space).

                      FreeDOS itself boots very fast as it doesn't: detect and assign a hardwared mapping and device initialization to all devices in your system. The application have to do this (like using the sound card!). Based on this, the "fast" is all about offering nothing. If you try to add stuff in FreeDOS you will find only what it doesn't support, and if you load everything, it loads/runs much slower: you don't have video acceleration, 64 bit processing, you don't have a TCP stack, so you have to write your own, and as you add more functionality, at the end the OS, the applications will run as a Frankenstein. Amazingly, there is a very new GCC for FreeDOS, the DJGPP distribution (4.7.3), which is a great achievement if you would ask me.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X