On 2009-08-20, Ezekiel <not-there@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:2391973.2SPGKsyGyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Linux vs Windows 7
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | And this is where Linux can make a big difference. There's nothing in
>> Windows
>> | 7 that Linux can't do, and in most cases, do it better. Our machines are
>> | quicker and more efficient. Our desktops are more innovative and less
>> static.
>> | Our apps are more powerful, cheaper and less partisan, and Linux
>> security has
>> | never been better. But best of all, we have complete control over the
>> future
>> | of Linux, and it's success or failure at the hands of Windows 7 is in
>> our
>> | hands.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/linux-vs-windows-7
>>
>
> From the article...
>
><quote>
> But when we compared the 64-bit version of Windows 7 against its equivalent
> Ubuntu release, Linux was faster on most of the tests we ran, including boot
> time, shutdown time and most of the filesystem tests. The only test where
> Windows 7 was significantly faster than everything else was the Richards
> benchmark of overall system performance.
></quote>
>
> Sounds about right. Linux is faster in "boot time" and "shutdown time" and
> Windows 7 was "significantly faster" in overall system performance.
...so Windows 7 is find as long as you don't have to do any disk access.
<snicker>
I don't think that's what that old Apple luminary said about not wanting
the "burden" of saving stuff...
--
OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
/ | \
|
|
