On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 17:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > 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? ---- You chose Word as the comparison and that was preloaded so it wasn't fair. OO and Mozilla/FF have optional 'stay loaded' options on WinXP undoubtedly because people used 'launch' times as a indicator of system speed and clearly they don't want to appear to be sluggish alternatives to the Microsoft branded choices. Anyway, I do have identical machines with similar Firefox/openoffice.org installations and FC-4 compares favorably if launch time is the yardstick. Craig
