On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:34, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>>So do many other apps, like my web browsers. I think this
>>qualifies as "creating a new process".
>
>
> No, it has next to nothing to do with process creation.
> 'cat' would be closer.
I know what I'm talking about, we're just talking about
different things, using the same words, I suppose.
"Process" means something very specific in unix-like
systems. It's what you get when the fork() system
call completes successfully, and you can benchmark
it by measuring forks/second.
I have 15+ years of experience optimizing real time
operation on telephony equipment, so I do know.
From a user's perspective, Linux is noticeably slower
on the same hardware.
Not necessarily.
From a cycle-by-cycle perspective, Windows (when quiescent)
is not a cycle hog. I find that CPU intensive apps (like
multiprecision numerical computations, Drhystone, etc.)
when compiled using DJGPP and run under Windows XP, 95, and
98 runs in the same time as the same source compiled and
run under Linux.
Yes, if you aren't making system calls, the OS is not
all that relevant except for it's time-slicing overhead.
Try running a few hundred of your computations at once
in separate processes so you have a chance at noticing.
I haven't specifically timed actual context times or
interrupt latencies. But for actually starting applications,
Linux is definitely and noticeably slower.
I'll agree if you always qualify that as "X applications".
I'm sure you realize that many useful things do not
require the creation of a screen window.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com