Inefficient Whistler Coding

This is a discussion about Inefficient Whistler Coding in the Windows Hardware category; How many of you think that Whistler runs as fast as Window 2000 on your same machines with the burden of new themes/stuff. . . Do you feel that Whistler/Windows coding is inefficient? Or Microsoft is adding tons of code without optimizing it.

Windows Hardware 9627 This topic was started by , . Last reply by ,


data/avatar/default/avatar14.webp

507 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-01-30
How many of you think that Whistler runs as fast as Window 2000 on your same machines with the burden of new themes/stuff...
 
Do you feel that Whistler/Windows coding is inefficient? Or Microsoft is adding tons of code without optimizing it. You comments..
 
 
ARC

Participate in our website and join the conversation

You already have an account on our website? To log in, use the link provided below.
Login
Create a new user account. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds.
Register
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Jan 30
Created
Feb 11
Last Response
0
Likes
5 minutes
Read Time
User User User User User
Users

Responses to this topic


data/avatar/default/avatar16.webp

1615 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-03-25
One thing that i don't like in whistler is when you have the classic start menu and the expand control panel option turned on it takes a hell of a long time for the menu with all the control panel items on it to open up. Other than that i think that the code is good. It still has a ways to go for sure. I am still using 2296 so i am sure that it has already gotten a bit better. Generally the major diff that i notice between win 2k and whistler is the mem usage is much higher in whistler like 20 - 40 megs more. for me that is ok i could give a **** but i imagine that could cripple a sys with like 128 megs.
 
------------------
My System
Dell Demension XPS T500
Triple Boot
Windows 2000 Pro 2195
Windows Whistler Pro 2296
Windows Millennium Final Retail
PIII @ 500 Mhz (with after market heatsink and dual fan)
512 Megs Ram
Guillemot Maxi Gammer Cougar (TNT2 M64 w/ 32 Megs of RAM)
Matrox Millennium PCI (w/ 4 Megs of RAM for second monitor)
3Com Etherlink XL 10/100 Ethernet Card
Abit Hot Rod Pro ATA-100 RAID Controller
2 x 12.6 Gig Maxtor Hard Disks RAID 0 (for system)
1 76.3 Gig Maxtor Hard Disk (for storage)
40X LG CD Rom Drive
100 Mb Iomega Internal Zip Drive
MS Explorer Mouse
MS Natural Keyboard Pro
And not a single piece of software that I actually own
 
[This message has been edited by Four and Twenty (edited 30 January 2001).]

data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp

1209 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-10-27
ok, how many times do I have to say this..it's like anything else, it gets all thrown together, then smoothed off at the end.
 
The memory usage has nothing to do with any of the themes or additional things, it has to do with a memory leak in which I submitted, they told me to be on the lookout for it in the future and they'll get it fixed up, but to keep informing their chief producer in charge of this. Now, I have used 2416 with 128 and 256 MB RAM. Both of them run it very good. The memory leak makes up for more than half of the usage. It's still worth it to have over Windows 2000 anyday anyways. I think I'll move to it for good when Beta 2 is out.
 
But, like I said, it all gets thrown together and the optimization, bug wipeout and stuff gets done in the Release Canadiates. And remember, it's a beta.
 
[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 30 January 2001).]

data/avatar/default/avatar39.webp

3867 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-02-04
Exactly. It's a beta. Hold off on conclusions about the OS until it's done. But feel free to post your opinions.

data/avatar/default/avatar39.webp

3867 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-02-04
APK,
 
You should start sprucing up your web page or sticking those in .HLP format. Would be easier for linkage and easier on the eyes!
 

 
[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 10 February 2001).]

data/avatar/default/avatar24.webp

180 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-09-22
hmm ..2419 definitely feels slower than 2410 but not in a huge way..and it feels buggier.. also it doesnt handle o/c as well as 2410 did.. im sure exactly as jdulmage has explained may times, they threw in a ton of stuff together for 2419 so it all gets fixed by beta2.. heck there were like 3 bad spelling mistakes during the setup screen if any of you sat there for the 2 hour install and read the damn thing..
 
hey jdulmage ..beta2 ships feb28th but is released the 13th right??
 
------------------
win2kbox.cjb.net
Abit KT7A-R,Duron650@910,128PC150,DeskStar 20gb, GeForce2GTS,SBLive X-gamer, Acer 10x8x32, Whistler

data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp

1209 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-10-27
well, 2419 is considered "A serious tester build", because they just wanted you to see what they had in store and see how well it worked, or didn't work. As for the 2 hour install, well, when you take Windows 2000, and make it only about 100 times better, it'll take longer to install, wow, it's actually decent.
 
Well, the private newsgroup still says this Monday for full release of Beta 2.
 
MS removed all of the builds off of WindowsBeta, there is no way that they would do that 2 to 2 1/2 weeks before Beta 2, they've never done that before, and they won't now, it would shock me to see that. Anyways, still says Monday, we will see I guess.
 
[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 11 February 2001).]

data/avatar/default/avatar24.webp

180 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-09-22
yo let us know when its out.
 
------------------
win2kbox.cjb.net
Abit KT7A-R,Duron650@910,128PC150,DeskStar 20gb, GeForce2GTS,SBLive X-gamer, Acer 10x8x32, Whistler