On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 15:54, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> My experience is completely the opposite: Linux is less CPU intensive
> than Windows on the desktop or on a server. All of my clients have said
> the same thing.
>
> It's strange...I've seen similar claims made directly by Microsoft and
> Microsoft's friends. I smell something fishy.
Maybe you just need to qualify the claims a bit. I think Linux
tends to be much better at disk activity in the sense of
using caching intelligently - but that only works if you have
some RAM. And many Linux programs do not require a GUI
which makes them more efficient. However, I think X has
more overhead than Windows when you do need a GUI, and
KDE/Gnome have much more overhead each than the Windows
native equivalent. Worse, the license wars have forced
us to have the shared library toolkits for both and probably
a few others competing for RAM when we run an assortment
of applications.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
