Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Opinion: XP faster than Linux? Not so fast!

__/ [Roy Culley] on Sunday 25 December 2005 01:03 \__

> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5331521989.html
>     In a recent so-called Desktop Linux versus Windows XP shootout,
>     writer George Ou declares that "Microsoft handily beat the open
>     source platform." The basis for this judgment? "OS boot time and
>     application load times" on two different PCs. Oh, dear. This isn't
>     right at all.
>     First, using OS boot times as the only real comparison between
>     operating systems is a lot like comparing cars by how long it
>     takes you to get from 0 to 60. Yes, it's a measurement, but by
>     itself it doesn't say much of anything.
>     The a very nature of the test itself is really pretty meaningless,
>     anyway. Two machines do not a benchmark make.
>     I used to help write and run benchmarks at Ziff Davis Labs, now a
>     branch of Veritest. The very idea of saying anything about
>     operating system performance based on two machines load time
>     wouldn't be taken as anything but a bad joke.
>     [...]
>     That said, Office does make good use of Windows to load
>     quickly. I, however, don't see this as a good thing at all.
>     Office loads quickly, because it -- like far too many Microsoft
>     programs -- makes use of Microsoft's built-in integration between
>     its applications and its operating systems using shared libraries,
>     and its eternal confusion between data and programming code found
>     in everything from DDE to OCX to ActiveX.
>     This is Microsoft's eternal Achilles' heel. By integrating
>     applications and operating systems at a deep level, Microsoft
>     assures that any security hole has the potential to have profound
>     effects on the entire system.
>     As it happens, Ou and I talked about this very point a few weeks
>     back. His response?
>     "A lot of those issues have been resolved. IE on SP2 is very
>     protective about ActiveX, and Vista will be even more protective."
>     Yes, Windows is better than it used to be, but the fundamental
>     flaws that come from an operating system that was never, ever
>     meant to work on a network are still there.

A "Linux versus Windows XP shootout" over Christmas? Slow down, cowboy. It's
no news either: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459

  "What's noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to
  FreeBSD and Linux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows
  Windows losing to the two Unix variants. For example, they show the number
  of CPU cycles needed to create and start a process as 1,032,000 for
  FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for Windows/XP."

Best wishes,


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index