On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:48, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>>This is a common misconception. Windows is often portrayed as a cycle
>>hog. Since doing benchmarks is one of my hobbies (I dunno why), I have
>>run benchmarks on about a dozen machines I own, with three or on some
>>even five different OS installed. Windows is not a cycle hog.
>
>
> Until you try to do something... Benchmark the time to create a new
> process on windows vs.about anything else, or the time wasted
> in context switching among them.
By far the slowest machine/OS combination I have is Linux (FC2) on
my fastest (2.7GHz) machine. Windows XP on that same machine is
noticeably faster (not just measurably faster).
As an example, I just "right clicked" on my desktop, and it took
five (5) seconds for the menu to pop up. Selecting "open terminal"
took ten (10) seconds before first prompt. I have no unusual scripts
which run at terminal startup. Windows XP is much faster in starting
a console window.
I just opened Open Office "Writer Word Processor", and it took
thirty nine (39) seconds to initialize.
You are observing disk access time and window creation time,
next to nothing to do with CPU time. For a similarly
'look and feel' approach to process creation time, run something
like '/bin/echo test' on a virtual console and time it on the 2nd
run when the program will be in the disk cache.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com