On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 17:49 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > I'd like to get a little perspective here. There was a comment > made, variations on which I've seen repeatedly on this and other > fora related to Linux, to the effect that Win.. is a CPU hog, > when I know, from personal experience, using some tools designed > to find that out, that Win.. is *not* a CPU hog, and that its > performance, especially that of NT and XP, compare *very* > favorably with Linux. ---- that wasn't my comment and you jumped all over the comment I did make entirely leaving out the predicate that I made for the comment which made this branch of the thread unnecessary ---- > My contention is not that Linux is bad, nor that Win.. is > good or better. My contention is that promulgating untruths > (I'm tempted to say "lies") about Win.. is not the way to > promote Linux. ---- I'm not promoting Linux and I'm not tearing down Windows. A computer doesn't typically exist in a vacuum. My experiences with a desktop computer system is that it typically exists in a networked, shared resource environment, with a fair amount of extra software installed and that is free to access the Internet and in that scenario, its performance will degrade by the things that Windows does to exist in the LAN environment, by the number of shared libraries and processes installed by various softwares that get installed on the machine to make it productive and by the software necessary to protect its character from the big bad Internet. When I compare this type of Windows machine to this type of Fedora Core 4 system...Linux compares rather well. With that...I exit this thread. Craig
