Ed Greshko wrote:
I wrote
Why should Linux be using more CPU than Windows?
I don't know that it does or doesn't. But the question is to vague to even contemplate. Maybe in a multi-tasking environment Linux is more efficient
You apparently already know all the answers. Of course you don't need more data.
in its scheduling. Maybe a Linux system spends less time in an idle/wait state while I/O is going on. What services/tasks are being performed on when running windows v.s. Linux?
All I know is, there isn't some hidden defect in "Linux" causing every
Who said anything about "hidden defect"?
Every defect has a first time that it gets discovered. As software gradually matures, the "easy" defects get taken care of, and the more elusive ones remain.
system running it to use more electricity and over heating systems. Then again, maybe Linux is conspiracy cooked up by the oil companies to increase demand for their products. :-)
This isn't worth responding to. The whole message has the appearance of a joke.
I suggest that he actually capture some information, and the world comes to pieces. Where I come from letting prejudice guide behavior is not considered good practice.
I suggest he run top or something similar, and actually *measure* CPU utilization. If it is within normal operation (as I suspect it is) then that's the end of the story.
If it isn't, then it's worth further investigation.
Suggesting actually *collecting information* rather than *acting on knee-jerk prejudice* is usually considered prudent, where I come from.
But then, I come from a background where if software fails, one loses customers, because they don't have a religious attachment to using it, and people care about their reputations, and try to produce high quality stuff, because they know the customers will vote with their feet.
Mike