Quote:
Originally Posted by Iznogood
Microsoft has proven, over and over again, that they are unable/unwilling to make an OS suitable for being connected to the internet. In my opinion, Windows on a tablet is a paradox. Tablets have the smallest and weakest processors to save power and keep the temperatures on acceptable levels, yet a lot of the capacity of the CPU will be used for anti-virus? Say, what's the meaning of that?
|
False premise.
I've had no serious need to install AV on a Windows box in several years. The built-in support has been good enough. When I have installed, it's been Security Essentials, which has always been lightweight, unlike Norton. My machines practically live on the net.
The truth of the matter is that most processors go unused until you play something truly intensive or do something like transcoding, in which case you are likely only trying to do that one thing. Web doesn't really touch a CPU that much.
Significant internal work has gone on internally (this is public knowledge as of Win7) to detangle certain thread-scheduling issues. Further, the app lifecycle model for modern apps is very different from prior win32 apps -- more like the winphone's. When you switch focus, they go into suspension and so don't consume CPU. Background activity is something you grant permission for. Further, the APIs have been made heavily asynchronous, making it more difficult for devs to write code that locks up the UI thread.
As a metric, the machine I'm on is running an i5. I presently have 6 web pages open, 4 other modern apps open (Adera [a game], Kindle, OneNote MX, News) and Outlook 2013 preview running in the legacy desktop. I have both DropBox and SkyDrive clients active. Visual Studio is also running.
This is well in excess of a typical user. My UX is not blinking at all on this. Streaming Netflix HD over WiFi is no challenge.