Windows file access performance compared to Linux

Re:Windows file access performance compared to Linux by cmurf on Saturday December 29, 2018 @11:42PM (#18787433)

UEFI Secure Boot, mandatory signed binaries, and Windows Defender (XProtect on macOS), have contributed more to protecting from malware than 3rd party anti-virus. Although I think the existence, cost, and PITAness of 3rd party anti-virus might very well have contributed to motivating the OS vendors into securing their products better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows file access performance compared to Linux by Wowfunhappy on Sunday December 30, 2018 @01:17AM (#18787763)

It should be noted, I believe the parent comments included Windows Defender as an anti-virus. 3rd party was never specified, and disabling Windows Defender can indeed improve file access performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows file access performance compared to Linux by dvlsg on Sunday December 30, 2018 @04:12AM (#18788228)

Can confirm. I usually have to turn off windows defender whenever I'm doing anything with docker, or node modules, or something similar. If I don't, my computer slows to a crawl.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows file access performance compared to Linux by computerex on Monday December 31, 2018 @12:04AM (#18793118)

Source? I thought UEFI was just a way to make Linux a pain in the ass to dual boot with Windows? What's your evidence that it's effective against malware? I am biased here, and hate uefi.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows file access performance compared to Linux by wtallis on Monday December 31, 2018 @07:43AM (#18794264)

UEFI is not the same thing as UEFI Secure Boot. UEFI booting in general makes dual-booting far easier than BIOS-based booting where operating systems have to fight over who owns the MBR. Secure Boot makes it harder to set up a multi-boot system because you need a signed bootloader for your Linux system.

[ Parent | on HN ]