On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:48, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>This is a common misconception. Windows is often portrayed as a cycle > >>hog. Since doing benchmarks is one of my hobbies (I dunno why), I have > >>run benchmarks on about a dozen machines I own, with three or on some > >>even five different OS installed. Windows is not a cycle hog. > > > > > > Until you try to do something... Benchmark the time to create a new > > process on windows vs.about anything else, or the time wasted > > in context switching among them. > > By far the slowest machine/OS combination I have is Linux (FC2) on > my fastest (2.7GHz) machine. Windows XP on that same machine is > noticeably faster (not just measurably faster). > > As an example, I just "right clicked" on my desktop, and it took > five (5) seconds for the menu to pop up. Selecting "open terminal" > took ten (10) seconds before first prompt. I have no unusual scripts > which run at terminal startup. Windows XP is much faster in starting > a console window. > > I just opened Open Office "Writer Word Processor", and it took > thirty nine (39) seconds to initialize. You are observing disk access time and window creation time, next to nothing to do with CPU time. For a similarly 'look and feel' approach to process creation time, run something like '/bin/echo test' on a virtual console and time it on the 2nd run when the program will be in the disk cache. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
