__/ [Linønut] on Saturday 12 November 2005 01:25 \__
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rich Gibbs belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Gordon Burgess-Parker said the following, on 11/11/05 14:48:
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459
>>>
>>
>> Here's a link to the original Microsoft paper (.pdf):
>>
>> <ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-135.pdf>
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but some of the performance
>> comparisons are, um, interesting.
>
> I like this (from the blog):
>
> So why is this interesting? Because their test methods reflect
> Windows internals, not Unix kernel design. There are better, faster,
> ways of doing these things in Unix, but these guys - among the best
> and brightest programmers working at Microsoft- either didn't know or
> didn't care.
>
> And if they're the best and brightest, what do you think happens when
> the average Microsoft programming whiz gets asked to program for
> Linux?
Microsoft finally *give* the fact, but hide them under a thick blanket (PDF)
that would better not leak to the world:
<quote>
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.
</quote>
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Double your drive space - delete Windows"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:50am up 8 days 23:48, 3 users, load average: 1.03, 0.34, 0.11
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
