News Netbook graphics given a boost

LOL 1.2MB "bloat". Oh the humanity!

If anyone is so obsessed over performance they should be using DOS. Afterall with Windows you've got numerous copies of C++ libraries (MS VC++ runtime, VC++ 2005 runtime, other compiler's runtimes, the various C runtimes to go with the C++ runtimes, zip libraries, etc. etc.), games users will have 10+ copies of DX libraries and a few copies of 3rd party libraries like Bink. Every large OS is much the same - it's to ensure apps work without requiring all apps work with the very latest version of these libraries. If anything, .NET possibly has a smaller long-term cost since ALL apps use the single shared instance of the Framework rather than having their own copies.

Sure some .NET apps are slow, but that's because the application itself was written wastefully. I can't see a small utility like this bogging down a netbook and making boot times take hours. In fact it improves performance so...

As for slow .NET startup times, that's an unfortunate side-effect of a design decision with .NET. Of course with every price you pay, you get something back - in this case it means theoretically faster run-time performance and lower total RAM usage. Basically .NET apps are compiled to machine code at bootup. This is for two major reasons: 1. The app is then optimised for maximum performance for your specific PC (aka. if you have SSE3 support, SSE3 will be used where possible - even though it wasn't available when the app was first made). 2. It means generic code can be written by the programmer, and then compiled when necessary reducing memory footprint and increasing performance (native code, rather than lots of boxing/unboxing).

I would humbly suggest that if anyone is so scared about something affecting performance, they should go back to an extremely lightweight OS like Linux with command line only, or even DOS. A GUI is far too much overhead and will kill performance due to it's 100s of MB of overhead.

 

Just a quick follow-up to a single comment:

".NET's inclusion by default in Vista is likely to be one of several reasons for Vista's poorer performance and higher resource use compared to Win2K/XP."

If the library isn't being called/used, then it's taking up 0 CPU time and 0 RAM since it's not being used. If I don't use the Calculator in Windows, then it's only cost is the HD space the exe file takes up - the app isn't loaded up so it isn't using CPU time or RAM. Same with the .NET framework - if no apps use it, then by extension there's no way it can do anything but use up HD space.

 

Couldn't have put it better...

 

is no one just happy anymore that someone bothered to even do this to begin with, stop the bitching and be happy that you have at least an option to even consider doing this.

 

can anyone please tell me how to install this on Ubuntu? the readme says through a terminal but i still have no idea how that's done. thanks.

 

So ummmm... can you play games with GMA Netbooks now?

 

Which have zero impact on resource usage until they're loaded. The Windows Registry, on the other hand, has significant portions loaded into memory all the time, so anything that increases its size greatly will have a measureable impact. Why else do you think Windows-based setups tend to run slower over time?

Very theoretical indeed. See The Coming .NET World – I’m scared, .NET World Follow Up and Managed Code Controversy for more considered analysis of the overheads involved.

To take the converse (and equally silly) view, you'd be blissfully happy at paying unnecessarily on upgrades to regain previous levels of functionality, as long as your bloat of choice had lots of dials and widgets to play with?

The views you have espoused simply serve to excuse sloppy, idle and incompetent work by those software developers who persist in thowing unwanted kitchen sinks on users' systems.

I take it you weren't aware that portions of Vista (e.g. Task Scheduler, Management Console, Event Viewer) use .NET then?