Windows 8 and code rot?

A problem Windows OS has had historically is code rot. Windows machines tend to slow down with time unless corrective measures are taken. MBP tend not to have this issue due to a different OS design. Does anyone know if Windows 8 addresses this issue?

 

Windows 8 file structure and file system are still essentially the same. OSX is based on Unix, and Unix and Linux are [arguably] more stable, and their file systems are considered more efficient.

But to answer plainly: no, as it's the same at it's core as Windows 7. Then again, I see system speed degradation more often as end-user negligence more than it is "code rot" (which the term "code rot" seems like a misnomer, as it is).

 

FWIW, I did not invent the term code rot. Got it from the computer tech at work.

 

That has not been true in quite a while, at least since the new generation of Windows OS since Windows 2000. There's a fairytale to that effect, that has persisted until today, however, yes.

No, they don't. People collect junk, and start more and more programs at startup and login, however. That has nothing to do with the underlying OS.

OS X doesn't have this issue if the users don't install stuff that implants startup programs. Which is easier to do with OS X, because people tend to use far fewer programs in OS X. Again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "OS design".

There are no differences between Win 8 and previous versions in that respect.

Yep, both of these statements are arguable. I'm not sure who it is that considers (some of?) the file systems available in Linux more efficient than NTFS. Good-old NTFS is not bad at all.

Couldn't have said it much better than this. We see things eye-to-eye on this one.

 

Well, you can blame the user, but if the OS is designed in a way that is likely to get an unsophisticated user in trouble, I would argue the problem is with the OS. My girl friend has a very slow running Windows machine. I don't doubt that she did not do all the maintenance stuff she should have done, but the burden should not have been on her.

 

Oh you know, the typical enthusiasts/loyalists (and MS haters). They also believe the file system is more secure - though I see another crack in that argument as well.

Wasn't trying to make anyone the fool, either way. I'm open minded to what others have to voice. Both operating systems have advantages and disadvantages (but don't get Pirx started on Windows 8 ).

 

and most of the rest of us would argue that that it's the unsophisticated user.

yes, the "burden" to operate and maintain a machine most assuredly should lie with the user/operator, if nothing else than by definition.

as for so-called code rot, which is 100% a misnomer because code doesn't do anything it's not scripted to do, if the code can be refreshed then it's really a non-issue--unless you're unsophisticated.

Sent from my PI39100 using Board Express

 

Windows 8 does nothing to address the "issue", but Windows RT does

Realistically, how do you expect Microsoft to deal with crappy programmers employed by other companies*, other than by outright preventing you from installing the crappy programs that crappy programmers churn out?

*This is an oversimplification - I'm willing to bet that a good deal of the time it's actually crappy management that's forcing overworked and underpaid programmers to deliver on unrealistically short schedules.

 

The only way to prevent this is to limit what programs you can install. Windows RT does this with apps, so arguably it is less susceptible to slowdown with time. With the expanded Task Manager, it's easier to disable programs that launch at startup although this obviously doesn't (and shouldn't) occur automatically. And UAC also serves as another check to the installation of random programs that are unnecessary bloat.

 

There is also the fact that people click next without taking the time to read what the step is actually about when installing programs. How many times have you seen toolbars and programs like Chrome bundled with other free apps. I want to install CCleaner and only Ccleaner, not Chrome with it. If I wanted Chrome, it would already be installed on my laptop. That tends to bloat a system pretty fast and that one can't even be put on the complexity of the OS, it can only be put to user laziness. That checkbok with also install Google Chrome and the Google Toolbar are pretty explicit. People install all sort of crap because they are not careful and don't take the time to read. We're not talking about error messages which can sometimes be obscure either.

Then there are programs that install themselves as startup items.
iTunes: why the hell, do you need it at startup for, Zune is also like that too.
Quicktime: same thing.
Adobe Reader: that one baffles me each time, it doesn't even need to be a startup item to check for updates, Flash does it on it's own just fine.
Skype: again, when installing, you get asked if you want skype to start when your computer starts, can be disables in the options
Steam: also a startup item by default, can be disables from the options in Steam.
And the list goes on...

That too tends to bloat a system and that one isn't down to windows, it's down to the software makers. That said, it isn't exactly easy for the average Joe to disable startup items from MSConfig in 7 and the new task manager in 8, but it shouldn't be either, there is potential for harm there.

As for the burden of maintaining your computer, some of it has to be on the user. I don't like using car analogies, but here goes anyways: you either pay someone to do maintenance on your car or do it yourself. The point being that it requires maintenance. The same goes for any OS, could things be better, yes, but there will always be maintenance required, just like removing dust from a laptop's heatsinks is up to the user.

 

So, what OS "is designed in a way that is likely to get an unsophisticated user in trouble"? It's certainly not Windows. And certainly OS X is not designed in any way that would be less prone "to get an unsophisticated user in trouble". As an aside, I hear that installing service packs to OS X, sorry, "upgrading" OS X to a new OS version typically results in machines that become unbearably slow. At least that's what a whole lot of those people happily "upgrading" to Mountain Lion found out. But, hey, you can always buy a new Mac...

 

I use both Windows 7 and Mac OS. Mac OS is definitely more idiot proof. The problem with bloating at start up just tends not to arise. That said, Mac OS just does not work well in a lot of circumstances. I happens to me all the time that video clips won't play well or I run into other glitches. Using Chrome instead of Safari helps, and I have alternative video players loaded, but sometimes there is no choice but to do certain things in Windows. Agreed, you cannot get by without some user maintenance, but Microsoft products are consistently techier. Word is much less intuitive (and clunkier) than Word Perfect. Word still dominates because of Microsoft's marketing power.

 

And oh, what a power it is to behold. But all of this is deviating to program-specific functionality and intuitiveness, while putting the foremost topic on the wayside. Code does not "rot". A Windows machine will slow down as components get old and tired, software clutters the disk drive, configurations are inappropriately set for optimal performance, etc. A Honda is no more "idiot proof" than a Toyota - it comes down to how you treat the product.

I will concede though, in that Macs are very robust and reliable computers in my experience. But I'm not sure where you're going with the statement: "Microsoft products are consistently techier."

 

PEBKAC ... that is all.

 

Since Object oriented programing code rot is pretty much non existant. Agreed you could find lazy programers leaving unused code but even then the objects are just not created or subsequently destroyed so usually it is a non issue. That is other than making the program on disk much larger than it need be. Again most higherend commerciaql apps with the huge development teams just should not suffer from this, especially the OS itself.

Code rot could also be an issue as routines that are forgoten and left alone one day can lead to exploits, again especially in the OS, so care is taken to get rid of it when ever there are changes. Now bloat is a total other story.................

 

They call it Win rot, although it's a misnomer. It does happen, but because of malware, viruses, even just bad coded uninstallers or programs. Stuff collects over time. There can also be registry conflicts. But this is not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the programs and users. It's like saying drivers that get in an accident on a completely sunny day on a totally flat road blame it on the road, driving laws, or weather conditions. It's not. It's either the vehicle (program) or the driver (user)

 

I can just see the open source community/MS haters taking that and having a field day with it. But I completely agree; PEBKAC (or ID-10 T error. )

 

Every Windows computer I had dramatically slowed down with time, and I would call myself a mid-level user. Not as sophisticated as apparently many of the people on the thread, but not at the back of the line either. I did what I could to avoid start up issues, etc. Ran CCleaner, etc. I am not trying to start a war, and I am not a major Mac OS enthusiast, but I have not had the same problems with the MBP. I use the MBP more or less the same way I used the prior Windows computers. So if it is not the OS, why did I have more problems with Windows OS computers than with the MBP? I am not being flippant, I am genuinely curious.

 

Did you install the same programs and apps? And what problems did you have exactly? Windows is more prone to malware and viruses because of it's widespread use primarily. OSX isn't immune to viruses either, it's just they are less likely targeted because of its meager use compared with Windows. Windows have over 90% market penetration, OSX 7%. So where do you think hackers will spend their time attacking?

 

Besides being constantly on top of not adding bloat you want a good defrager if you have a HDD. Personally I use Disk Perfect, there are other good ones out there as well.

 

The first thing I thought when I read the original post was that I got your point, but "code rot" is a pretty terrible name for the phenomenon.

This has nothing to do with it.

I believe the issue is real (not imagined) - and it primarily has to do with hard drive response times slowing down as they fill up with files (defraging or not). It also makes sense that casual users experience it more in Windows just because applications tend to exit when you close the window, whereas they tend to remain active in OS X. However, recent versions of Windows are better about managing memory than older versions, and we have much faster hard drives, and so the situation today is not going to be nearly as bad as it was a decade ago.

 

Any well structured project should be relatively low on code rot, regardless of the paradigm and implementation details behind it.

Unfortunately as mentioned before the fundamental premise of this thread (that windows slows down due to "code rot") is incorrect. Code rot would imply Windows was slow or bloated from the start. Code rot is a problem Windows does have, but you won't notice it outside of its extremely large installation size. It's primarily a side effect (or necessity) of backwards compatibility. Static code isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless of course it is never used and no conceivable use for such code is wise.

As for the unrelated slow down overtime? I haven't had that problem since Windows 98. That was an operating system issue. The kernel did not guarantee that it would free resources after an application closed. Most programs would free their memory and device contexts before termination, but those that crashed had little to no chance. This was, of course, solved after restart.

Slow down is possible. Fragmented and/or full disks, frequent use of virtual memory and unnecessary but active processes and/or services* should be avenues to look into if this is a problem for you. These, however, are applicable on any sufficiently advanced operating system. Windows Updates will add to the installation size, but it rarely adds services.

* Non-Microsoft. Unless you know what you're min/maxing.

 

Well, one of the great mysteries of Windows computing to me is why people love CCleaner so much, and, not only that, they actually believe it would do anything useful at all. It doesn't.

Honestly, I would love to be able to examine that question rigorously myself: Have somebody take a system image of their computer in its prime, and another one after it has "slowed down dramatically", and then examine in detail what causes the slowdown for these people.

On the other hand, I am typing this message on my trusty old M6400, which has been in use, day in and day out, for about five years now. I have literally hundreds of applications installed on it, yet the machine is nice and fast. Yes, it does boot a bit slower than it did, say, three years ago, but not "dramatically so", and I know exactly why it is a bit slower: There's roughly a dozen more startup programs I run now, and a bunch more services, too. All of these programs and services provide functionality I cherish, which is why they are there. Right after a fresh cold boot, I am now at 2.8GB memory usage, where I used to be at maybe 1.8GB three years ago. Well, memory is there to be used, not to sit around empty. Like I said, it is entirely clear why my memory footprint went up, and it has nothing to do with the OS, or that mythical "code rot". However, once the system is fully booted, it is exactly as fast as it ever was, and really leaves nothing to be desired.

 

In my opinion, it just gives you a unified way of cleaning temporary files, browser history, cache and such. It doesn't do anything that you can't do from either the program or windows. It also allows you to disable startup items (again something that you can do as easily in Windows). I'm of a mind that the registry shouldn't be messed with so scratch the registry cleaner from the list of things I consider useful. It now allows you to zero fill a drive too, but again something you can do with other utilities and I'd rather do it from a bootable parted magic, since it can also secure erase SSDs.

So in short, I see it as a way to do a rather drastic cleaning of temporary files, something that you can very well do without it and that in most cases isn't needed in my opinion (and yes, I used to believe otherwise in the past). It also has the potential to screw up things if you aren't careful imo.

As for Windows slowing down with time, I haven't noticed that happening on any of my windows 7 machines and some have been running for quite a while now, so i wholeheartedly agree with Pirx on that. I never bothered with a clean install unless I was getting a new drive and even then, when I changed the SSD in my desktop, I just cloned from one SSD to another in a record time over SATA III, I might add. Cloning was way faster than performing a clean install.

 

As far as what code rot is the programing method has a lot to do with it in the sence of it being easy to avoid or eliminate. Agreed code rot is not why the OS slows down and you are correct about drive issues, why I recomend Disk Perfect or other good defragmenter.

Edit; look at the post I made right before you posted this one...................

 

ccleaner, and even more so, Glary Utilities have been invaluable in doing a quick refreshening of other people's systems. That accompanied by malwarebytes anti-malware can make an "infected" system act almost like new again. Granted nothing is better than a clean install for a sluggish system, that is likely due to purposely or inadvertently installing installing add-ons, updates, or other crap over time that was never removed.

 

Oh yes, absolutely, I agree. I even use it for this purpose myself this way. Like you said, all of this could be done manually as well, but that would require a lot more clicks, so it is convenient. Making your computer faster, however, it does not.

As an aside, if you are interested in having more advanced control over your startup items, and don't mind spending a bit of money on that, I can highly recommend Chameleon Startup Manager.

 

That aligns pretty well with my experience. I bought my last pure Windows machine, a Thinkpad, about 8 years ago. Ran slower and slower. On the Thinkpad forum they acknowledged this was common and recommended regular, fresh OS installs. Perhaps the hardware has caught up so that it is not the issue it once was.

 

So in other words, you're complaining now, in 2013, about a problem that you last experienced 8 years ago?

You sound like one of those people who continue to claim that OS X isn't a true 64-bit OS - based on their experiences with their last Mac back in the Leopard days.

 

Kinda reminds me of a certain laptop I had back then with a 4200 RPM drive that slowed xp to a crawl when fragmented. Nothing to do with code rot, simply a product of it's time, I mean a 4200 RPM drive is slow to begin with add fragmented xp to that and it became a nightmare.

Now we have faster drives, even leaving SSDs out of the equation and Win7/8 handle fragmentation much better.

 

Well, if you had read the thread you would have learned that I was asking if Windows 8 had made a basic change. Also, it was recently as 4 years ago. Also, my girl friend has the problem currently.

 

If the basic change you're looking for is an iOS-style walled garden, then as I replied earlier, Windows 8 has not done so but Windows RT has.

Also, how much did your girlfriend pay for her laptop? A PC that costs as much as even the $1200 entry level 13" MBP should easily be able to brute force its way through any slowness a user could possibly notice, if only because of the sheer power of the quad core CPU and the fast SSD that's bound to be inside.

 

You make a good point, Peon. It was maybe a $600 model. So, based on the totality of the posts, it sounds like the "code rot" or whatever you want to call it days may be behibd us as long as you buy a powerful enough machine. Probably smart to stay away from the low end, but isn't that usually the case?

 

As with just about anything, you get what you pay for. There are exceptions, but when it comes to computing, a perfect example is the cost to performance ratio of a platter drive vs a solid state drive.

It's probably a fair assumption that your girlfriend's $600 system is more of a mid-range machine than "low-end". Even with that being said, chances are that there are some potentially low-end components, and/or (and no offense to her when I say this) she does not maintain it properly, which would certainly attribute to the performance [loss].

I can agree that OS X and Macs are - on a certain note - more "idiot proof", as you put it, though. But from a technical standpoint, Windows is no less dysfunctional compared to OS X than a dining table is to an office desk.

 

You're mixing ideas. Code rot has nothing to do with object oriented programming (or other valid styles of programming). If you check out the wiki article, you can get a sense of the formal definition of code rot. It generally has to do with larger scale programs that combine new code/libraries/scripts/other with old and legacy code/libraries/scripts/other, and the problems that can occur from outdated legacy code with some problems being incorporated into new projects, or the maintenance of multiple versions of code or libraries across projects. That has nothing to do with whether or not a library happens to be designed imperatively, in terms of objects, functionally, or whatever else.

And then there's the casual Windows-specific usage of the term code rot, which also has nothing to do with object oriented programming. This describes the (real) phenomenon of computer slowdown over time with Windows installed, at least in the XP era and prior, and maybe also with newer versions of Windows. Object oriented programming has been around since at least the 60's, and (again) has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why Windows exhibits the described phenomenon.