View Single Post
Old 05-05-2011, 07:12 PM   #14
Rob Williams
Rob Williams's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlantic Canada
Posts: 13,366

Originally Posted by OriginalJoeCool
Microsoft may justify the exclusion of some of these tools with the fact that most people wouldn't use them. I use them though. Why can't Windows 7 mount iso's? Why no checksumming utility, etc? Oh, I forgot an important one: Why doesn't Windows Explorer have tabbed browsing?!
The thing I find interesting is that there exists a -lot- of software on any Windows install that most home users won't even touch, but it's there. And at the same time, like you mentioned, simple but useful features have never been implemented, especially something like a hash-check tool (MD5 or SHA support would be nice). I guess like the NTFS file system, Microsoft just doesn't care about data integrity ;-)

I don't think I'd ever use a tabbed file manager (I haven't in the past), but I could see how it'd be useful, and should be there. Can also agree on the mounting of ISOs, though thankfully a few easy-to-use and free tools exist for that.

Originally Posted by RobbyBob View Post
Have you had the chance to use Gnome 3.0 yet? If so, how does it compare to Unity? They look relatively similar, and seem to have the same overall goal in mind. I'd also imagine that since Unity is a shell running on top of Gnome 2.x, while Gnome 3.0 is its own environment, that Gnome 3.0 would perform better and be more efficient overall. Is this the case?
I haven't, but I'd like to soon. For the most part, I do assume that it's quite like Unity, but I have heard that there are subtle differences that might sway you to one or the other. You might be interested in taking a look at this:

Performance-wise, I don't think there would be a huge difference. At the end of the day, GNOME 3 is still a shell that sits atop requires libraries (GTK+). Windows is much the same, with Explorer.exe (close it, and the entire desktop environment goes with it). It's true that GNOME 3 would have an advantage in that GTK+ is built around its inherent environment, but performance-wise, Ubuntu could easily adopt the same base libraries and code its own environment.

This isn't to say that one performs better than the other, however, but that might be a little tough to test. Compiz is the biggest killer of performance, especially when lower-end graphics cards are concerned - or poor drivers. I had experienced rather poor performance on an AMD Radeon HD 5970 with Compiz under Unity, and I suspect drivers have a lot to do with that. I got fed up with that GPU screwing up an older MMO I play, so I plopped an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 in here, and will test Unity again to see if things like Wobbly Windows performs better.

I wouldn't worry too much about performance in general, though. At the end of the day, both environments are rather "bloated" compared to their old counterparts (same with KDE 4 vs. KDE 3, but it still runs great).
Intel Core i7-3960X, GIGABYTE G1.Assassin 2, Kingston 16GB DDR3-2133, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 2GB
Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SSD (OS, Apps), WD VR 1TB (Games), Corsair 1000HX, Corsair H70 Cooler
Corsair 800D, Dell 2408WFP 24", ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Gentoo (KDE 4.11. 3.12 Kernel)

"Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get!" - H.P. Baxxter
<Toad772> I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do, I take it too far.

Rob Williams is offline   Reply With Quote