Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:09, Mike McCarty wrote:
My original point stands. Windows is not a cycle hog.
It has much more overhead when switching among several
processes.
Also, my
second point stands. As far as "until you try to do something",
Word starts much faster on my machine than does Open Office.
Windows pre-loads much of the MS office library code. Compare
Open Office/windows, Open Office/Linux. Linux will still lose
because X has more overhead but you'll be closer to reality
and in return for the X overhead you get the ability to
run any X app remotely.
So do many other apps, like my web browsers. I think this
qualifies as "creating a new process".
No, it has next to nothing to do with process creation.
'cat' would be closer.
I know what I'm talking about, we're just talking about
different things, using the same words, I suppose.
I have 15+ years of experience optimizing real time
operation on telephony equipment, so I do know.
From a user's perspective, Linux is noticeably slower
on the same hardware.
From a cycle-by-cycle perspective, Windows (when quiescent)
is not a cycle hog. I find that CPU intensive apps (like
multiprecision numerical computations, Drhystone, etc.)
when compiled using DJGPP and run under Windows XP, 95, and
98 runs in the same time as the same source compiled and
run under Linux.
I haven't specifically timed actual context times or
interrupt latencies. But for actually starting applications,
Linux is definitely and noticeably slower.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
