On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:07 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Currently Linux performance loading large binaries is at least > perceptually worse than Windows (some of that is perceptual tricks > windows apps pull, some of it real). Would you care to elaborate on this statement? It's not clear to me how perception could differ from reality in this case. If it seems faster doesn't that mean it is faster? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- From: Boxer Gnome <[email protected]>
- Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- From: Yaroslav Rastrigin <[email protected]>
- Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- From: Kasper Sandberg <[email protected]>
- Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- From: Yaroslav Rastrigin <[email protected]>
- Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- Prev by Date: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- Next by Date: Re: oops pauser.
- Previous by thread: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- Next by thread: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
- Index(es):
 |