Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:09, Mike McCarty wrote:
My original point stands. Windows is not a cycle hog.
It has much more overhead when switching among several processes.
Also, my second point stands. As far as "until you try to do something", Word starts much faster on my machine than does Open Office.
Windows pre-loads much of the MS office library code. Compare Open Office/windows, Open Office/Linux. Linux will still lose because X has more overhead but you'll be closer to reality and in return for the X overhead you get the ability to run any X app remotely.
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.
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.
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.
I haven't specifically timed actual context times or interrupt latencies. But for actually starting applications, Linux is definitely and noticeably slower.
Mike