"Tristan Wibberley" <tri### [at] compaqcom> writes:

> 
> Dos and Linux should have little speed difference between them. Most of the
> time consuming code doesn't have anything to do with the Operating System,
> the only stuff that has any noticeable effect is memory allocation and
> deallocation because it is the only thing that the OS is asked to do a lot
> of during rendering. Since Dos has evolved quite a bit, I expect it's
> memory operations are quite similar in speed to Linux (at least the OS
> under the Win95 GUI is probably faster than Dos6.22 - which is where the
> hype about win95 being faster than dos came from - dos6.22 is unoptimised,
> the basic OS under the win95 gui is quite efficient, but the command prompt
> is faster than windows due to lack of threads).
> 

<goggles> You apparently don't have a clue. First off, from personal
experience there's a 10-20% speedup on the same hardware. Secondly,
the dos memory handling stuff isn't even *close* to Linux. Remember
extended and expanded memory? Those concepts are still in there, just
hidden. On top of that, you've got the gui eating up a good 12M of
your memory.....I've run Linux on an 8 meg machine without a problem.
Try using Linux for a while, and maybe reading the kernel development
archives, before you go making claims like this.
Shalon Wood
-- 
People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die.
--Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

Post a reply to this message