Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 15:25 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:Les Mikesell wrote:On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:05, Mike McCarty wrote:Not my experience. I have a well-loaded Win95 and a well-loaded Win98 machine, both of which load up Word more than 10x as fast as Open Office loads on my Linux machine. The 300 MHz Win95 machine even pulls it across a LAN faster than my 2.71 GHz Linux box can load OO from its local disc. I just clicked on the "OpenOffice.org Writer Word processor" icon on the task bar at the bottom of my screen, and it was 58 seconds before it was ready to take a keystroke, on my 2.71 GHz Linux machine. On my 400MHz Win98 machine, Word loads in less than 5 secs. YMMV---- #1 I believe that Microsoft does some pre-loading of their Office shared libraries.
Machts nichts. WinXP boots faster on this machine than Linux does.
#2 I believe that you could speed the time on Linux by doing some pre-linking or whatever it's called (brain dead moment - but I recall this being a large topic of discussion in FC-2)
Prelink does run, though I wish it wouldn't. It takes over my machine for 20 minutes at a time, making keystrokes echo slowly, and mouse cursor movement very difficult.
#3 I don't have any numbers to back my 'runs like a dog' statement and I'm not gonna get sucked into doing it either. In fact, the only reason
That's fine.
#4 My comment about WinXP running like a dog was predicated on Windows 98 era systems...i.e. =< 128Mb RAM, =< 600Mhz Pentium III and evidently
Umm, I have a Pentium 90HMz 32MB machine which runs Win98 like a champ, but just barely chugs with Linux. I haven't loaded WinXP on that machine. Linux takes about 30 minutes to boot (Knoppix). I'm not sure XP would fit.
you chose to ignore the predicate of my statement. Some people are
Stong language. I don't recall choosing to ignore that, so I missed it. Sorry if that caused some talking at cross-purposes.
actually loading and running Fedora on this class of machine and wonder why the performance is lousy. Heck...I recently installed FC-4 on my Sony VAIO PictureBook C1X (64Mb RAM, 266 MHz Pentium II, 4 Gb HD), don't ask why, I would like to think it was lack of lucidity and boredom from my motorcycle accident. Talk about a dog...it hunts though...I installed NXclient on it and it's a hot performer (once it finally boots...gets connected to network...totally thrashes desktop environment into vm pages and can get NXclient application loaded...all of which takes the proverbial patience of Job). ;-)
I bet!
The faster load times of various Microsoft applications on the Microsoft platform are merely window dressing though...that's an incredibly narrow yardstick to measure system performance.
Eh? One measures with the yardstick which one uses, you know.
I use "terminal" windows, which take a lot longer to start
than "console" windows using WinXP. I use on occasion Open
Office to view documents that others have produced (I don't
use it for creating documents), and it takes about a minute
to load. Acroread also takes a long time to load, which is
how I view PDFs on the web. It takes Mozilla 7 seconds (just
measured it) to start a new window, when it's already loaded.
IE on Win98 takes less than a second on a machine with
1/7 the CPU speed, and an equal amount of memory, under
similar circumstances. (I haven't used WinXP for browsing,
so I don't know how that compares.)
Why is it that the very things which I find I need to use
are the ones I'm not permitted to use for comparison?
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!
