On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:34, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>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. "Process" means something very specific in unix-like systems. It's what you get when the fork() system call completes successfully, and you can benchmark it by measuring forks/second. > 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. Not necessarily. > 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. Yes, if you aren't making system calls, the OS is not all that relevant except for it's time-slicing overhead. Try running a few hundred of your computations at once in separate processes so you have a chance at noticing. > I haven't specifically timed actual context times or > interrupt latencies. But for actually starting applications, > Linux is definitely and noticeably slower. I'll agree if you always qualify that as "X applications". I'm sure you realize that many useful things do not require the creation of a screen window. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
