Why Windows 7 is going to fail for gaming and more...

If you're an FSX fan (Microsoft's latest Flight Sim) you'll know how important it is to maintain maximum performance from your file system (NTFS) and keep running defragmentation process regularly (WinXP or Vista, the same applies). In fact, there are defrag tools out there specific to help out FSX load scenery files faster and more efficiently.

But the real question is: why do Windows users need to defrag at all? On Linux and OS X file defragmentation is not significant (yes it happens but has no real performance impact on the OS) and there is no "defragmentation" process to run. Linux and OS X using a construct called inode to keep track of files. NTFS still relies on a Master File Table (similar to FAT that was created in 1976 for DOS). NTFS is a little smarter than FAT, but still is subject to performance loss due to file fragmentation.

Microsoft were aware of this problem (OS slowing down over time as it get fragmented) and came up with WinFS (back in 2003) which is what is supposed to go into Windows 7 (release eta 2010). All good we think - right?! Wrong, it appears that WinFS is actually going to be yet another layer on top of NTFS -- ugh. This is going to once again slow down the OS with yet another compatibility layer and this one is a pretty core one. So just when we thought Microsoft were listening to what people want from their OS, it turns out they are doing business as usual.

For those of you skipping Vista and hoping Windows 7 will "sort it all out", it doesn't appear to be the case. It was perhaps foolish of me to think that Microsoft could and would be so bold and dump NTFS -- guess constant defraging is still in everyone's future...and for the new version of FS and any game that is heavily reliant on OS file performance, we're just out of luck yet again.

I bet if they ditched ntfs everyone would bitch and moan about it too. either way, they're f*ck*d:

Scenario 1) "Nasty MS dumps filesystem forcing everyone to upgrade"
Scenario 2) "Nasty MS refuses to modernise filesystem, basta***"

Personally I think MS is the lesser of all the evils of the OS options - I shudder when I think of the nightmare of Linux (I'm sure it's great if you have the time to use it and fart around with drivers and scripts etc) and laugh when I think of the restrictiveness of OS X (tiny hardware support - i.e. mobos, gfx cards etc and reletivly small software base).

Note, that's my option, not meant to offend anyone or start a war, just ignite a debate mybe :-) [/disclaimer]

Maybe Microsoft is hoping everyone will be using SSD drives by 2010 -- not only do you NOT need to defrag them (regardless of OS), you don't want to defrag them as that reduces their life span.

Just amazes me how nothing ever really changes at Microsoft...it's still limping along with circa 1976 compatibility layers all over it. The irony is that if compatibility is really so important, run a dual boot or better yet provide an emulation app -- that way you don't have to penalize the entire OS just because some die hards that hangs onto some ancient program (read cheap mofo) wants it to work on the next new OS.

And, the other benefiit is that existing developers/vendors get to sell a new update to meet the new OS -- which is what eventually happens anyway.

If you can have Parallels for OS X that runs Windows and/or boot camp to run Windows native on a MacPro, why can't Micrsoft do a WinXP or Vista emulation also? Penalize those that MUST have the layers of compatibility, not those that want a fast, reliable, and secure OS. Once again, Microsoft putting the cart in front of the horse.

Not to mention the really cheap folks, rarely upgrade anyway because they fear change for the most part, not really the cost.

Well, DX11 is apparently going to be only available on Windows 7 so it does indeed look like business as usual.

EXT2FSD looks interest, I need to check that out. How is the performance?

Spot on! Hard Drives have had their day and are doomed. SSDs will be affordable for the main in a years time and by then performance would be even greater than they are now making them the obvious choice.

I did read your post and my question still stands - How is the performance? Ok, I'll expand that to how is performance on files that are NOT large -- better?

Not sure SSD will be it or not, getting to current drive cost levels is predicted to be around 2012. However, many vendors are getting involved. Like I said, some challenges need to be resolved, such as the life span of SSD. Even optimistic 64GB is $600 - $1200 pending vendor, compared to 1 TB at <$200 -- that's a pretty big gap.

But having SSD is still no excuse for Windows 7 lame WinFS on top of NTFS and the endless compatibility layer on compatibility layer on ... it's getting so bad (read out of control) that I suspect companies will start producing hardware level "compatibility accelerators" to try and speed up this even more bloated OS. So much for progress, good to see MS not listening at all, just leaves the DOOR WIDE OPEN for competition.

I think Windows MP will be an add-on because MS don't want to spend the next 10 years fighting against various international competition commissions ... again.

I'd go so far as to say M$ should drop 32-bit completely starting with whatever replaces Vista SP2 (Windows 7). Make SP2 the last 32-bit OS, and keep it avaliable for those who want to use their older games.

Vista had originally been slated as the last 32 bit os they would release..... but too many companies complained.. so windows 7 will now be the last 32 bit os from microsoft.

NTFS works fine... plain and simple... fragmentation? come on who really cares about fragmentation.. if you are worrying about fragmentation you need to get a newer os, or get newer hardware or both.

If textures do not load fast enough in FSX buy more ram and buy a better hardrive... but i think more ram ram+vista would do the trick.

Apologies.... below is far from the original posters topic... fragmentation... but I will say again, fragmentation is not an issue on current hardware and operating systems that it can impact negatively on gaming, in most situations

Lol Your wrong bob plain and simple. There is a limitation on MBR disks of 2TB but there is no such limitation on the ntfs filesystem. I would linky... but sure its easy to find specs on ntfs so why bother... plus there is possibliity of having to point out that your wrong again. Which I will....
While Hardware and OS's have limitations... the NTFS files system does not have a 2TB limit.

Nice of you to give ms credit, I am sure they really like credit from IT intellectuals like yourself, lol, thanks for the lifestyle tips also... ignore my betters, take drugs, and dont eat bacon....

OK thanks I read up on this on Wikipedia that is really useful info to know with bigger disks on the horizon...

Another point to MS as I see the volume limit is quite large - actually larger than EXT3 (16Gb vs. 8Gb @ 4K pages)!! Ouch this is really hurting!!

Bob

thats what people said about xp.

Probably the market is too small for the costs involved in converting a title. Also Macs tend to have substandard gfx cards which doesn't help.

The big advantage of vista over previous os's is that it utilises new hardware far better than previous os's.
The 2 important ones for gaming being Vista handles:
large amounts of ram better
multi core processors better

and yes it uses more resources... because newer hardware has more to offer.. which vista uses and does more with it then. If you want efficency why not go back to windows 98, min spec is a 486 and 16mbs of ram.

How lazy are you..... and have you in your experience used a 2TB or greater volume? Your statment just propagates misinformation, thanks for making the world a smarter place!

This sums up everything nicely enough(information can be verified elsewhere if you wish):
http://www.itworld.com/nlswindows070220
Highlights:
-Vista supports two types of disk partitioning: MBR and GPT.
-GPT disks theoretically can support upto 18 exabytes
-Vista only supports NTFS-formatted disks up to 256 TB in size

You are really need to take up mediation, yoga or something similar. I am getting extreme negative vibes off you man!!

Bob

very neat and information filled diss on HDD's, but what about the the original thread, tell me why it's not good for gaming???, as far as giving MSSKS a bunch of BS over Win 7, lord know they caught a bunch of it with Vista(well deserved I may add)do you have anything else to add that is really relavent to the thread other than you being dissed about the HDD thing- seems like the thread belongs in the NT section

What is the "more" that it is doing? It doesn't seem that Vista really does more than XP or even 2000. All three of these OS's let me browse the web, check my email, and let me do some word processing. Also, if you compare a fresh install of Windows 98 on what was a top of the line machine when it was released to a fresh install of Windows Vista on what was a top of the line machine when it was released, I am quite confident that the Windows 98 machine will appear to run much faster. Now do this for Windows 3.1. Even faster still. Windows keeps getting slower and slower. The reason behind this is that over time Microsoft is influenced more and more by outside interests that tell them to completely ignore the wants and need of their customers. i.e., RIAA and MPAA paying Microsoft to add unnecessary and unwanted digital rights management (DRM) complexity to the OS and force it's customers to download and install new and updated DRM code adding to the complexities of the code without your permission or notification. This also stops you from wanting to use your hardware the way you want to and gives control of it to Microsoft. The best route to go for a fast PC that does what you want it to do and not what Microsoft wants it do to is to use free software. This is the route I have gone and I have never looked back. In fact if Microsoft were to hand out free copies of Windows 7, I would still refuse. Windows cost you far more than just the license fee, it steals your hardware and tells you what you can and cannot do with your PC. Bottom line is, Windows is bad and Microsoft doesn't care about your wants and needs and uses your hardware for their purposes.

If you think I just made that up, do some serious research on Windows and DRM.

I do believe Windows 7 will fail but for a more simple reason. I have just been thru a couple weeks using and reviewing 7 and I'm thouroughly fed up. When someone spends the last five or so years learning their way arounds an OS, the last thing you want to do is to change things in such a way that you create a massive learning curve for the new one. I'll admit I have not used Vista and perhaps if I had the change would not be as bad, but I can only assume that going from XP to Vista is the same thing.

Change for change sake is a big mistake. Its ok to put a candy coated GUI on the windows, I don't mind the huge Icons on the bottom of the screen. What I hate and I'm willing to bet most average XP users will hate as well, is moving things around so you can't find them anymore, changing the names of commonly used tasks (Add/Remove Programs anyone?) and just generally screwing with things just so you can say its new or different (Task Manager). Different sucks, at least in the naming and logistics of the placement of things. Crap, you spent how many years and upgrades to XP to get it right and then dump it for something alien. Stupid and reckless of them in my opinion.

I actually hate the new Windows Explorer, its totally user unfriendly. If I am working in the right pane, there is no indication, that I can see, of where I am in the left pane and that makes creating new sub folders and copying files from the main folder to the subs a real pain the the arse. Whats wrong with the simple folder tree? and why do you have to have duplicate folders of everything with only one accessible. And whats wrong with letting me add cut copy paste to the toolbar? Why in the world would you eliminate something like customization from there? Where people have been using it for ten years to make the window to their liking.

From the smallest things like highlighting a group of files to accessing the My Documents folder (access denied?) jesus christ, its MY DOCUMENTS and I'm not allowed in. I think someone at the top at microsoft has lost their mind, and its showing in the the recent release of Vista and the Win7 beta which is really Vista junior. Microsoft, "the insane years".

If you sold it for $50 and allowed me to put it on 5 PC's I might buy it, but as it will be I'm sure, there is no chance I will be using win7, and I truely believe it is doomed to failure. One of the biggest hurdles they have to overcome, is to stop listening to the suckups who say how wonderful it is, and listen to the real Joe out there who just wants to have an easy go of it. There are so many people out there that say how wonderfiul Vista is, and in reality they're justifying having bought it by saying its wonderful but cursing themselves under their breath for being so stupid for buying into the hype.

First mistake was revamping Vista instead of revamping XP. Vista - hated / XP - Loved, what is so hard about that? So it would take a few more years to create XP with directX 10 and media player 12 and aero glass candy. But keeping the GUI basically the same and the logistics for moving around that GUI basically the same, is a real prerequisite for making a truely easy change from one OS to the next.

Actually more like Vista 1.2

while i'm no genius when it comes to file tables, i'll comment this much:

In the event of a catastrophic disk failure; ie: master boot record/master file table corruption - it can be a great deal easier to retrieve the data if the partition is NTFS, as NTFS partitions save a backup of their MFT on the drive.

To my knowledge, FAT does not - however, I could be wrong.

Ok to the n00bs which posts stuff like "LOL UR WRONG NTFS SUPPORTS MORE THAN 2TB":

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

google is your friend, really.

Also, the limit is on PARTITION SIZE, NOT ON DISK SIZE. That means that 10Tb hdds will work, but you'll have to partition them in =<2TB chunks.

Also, what does XP miss from Vista and Win7? What do they offer more?
Nothing else than a messed up GUI that uses resources for nothing, DX10 which like 5 games uses and nothing else.

Go on and update your system because you just like to have latest version of everything without even thinking about it, but as a developer, I can't work on those OS'es because lots of my previous tools doesn't work anymore and I just don't want to be forced to buy and use Microsoft stuff for developing.

Nice work on brainwashing people, Microsoft