|
 |
"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
> Chris C wrote:
>
> > Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cc tutfi> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder how is this done. Unless unix overclocks the cpu without telling
> > >you... :)
> >
> > It's quite obvious, if you think about it. Any application on a modern OS must
> > share the CPU with - at the very least - the OS, if not other applications. In
> > addition, the application will typically depend on the OS for various services.
> >
> > The more efficient the OS is in keeping out of the application's way, and the
> > more efficiently coded the services it offers are, the more time the
> > application has to do its work.
> >
> > Windows 95/98 are woeful in that respect - they still have chunks of 16-bit
> > code in them, which causes a contect switch every time they're called from
> > 32-bit mode.
> >
> > Windows NT - while a true 32/64-bit OS - still has more overhead than modern
> > unixes.
> >
> > So, a good Unix such as FreeBSD or Linux will typically run (compiler
> > optimisations not considered) the same code on the same hardware faster than
> > Windows.
> >
> > -- Chris
>
> And another factor is how memory and drive space are handled. NTFS was originally
> hyped as not ever needing defragmentation. NT5 is going to include a third-party
> developed defragmenter. Hmmm. Convey anything about their file system design?
>
> Also, the swapping in NT is horrible. Well, OK maybe not that bad, but it can be a
> factor. Especially with a program like PovRay.
>
> And Win9X is another big problem. Any 16-bit process executing will block all
> 32-bit processes until it complets. In windows multimedia development, I've had
> simple test cases where a timer callback for MIDI playing could get a 2100ms
> latency! 2.1 seconds of non-callback just because I happened to be accessing
> ethernet at the time. Ouch!
Hi. I've compared the speeds. On NT and 9x are exactly the same. And with a well
configured kernel, Linux is about 40% faster than NT, and with a bad configured
kernel, it's about 25% faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:06:18 +0200, Miguel Alvarez Rodriguez wrote:
>IkpvbiBBLiBDcnV6IiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBDaHJpcyBDIHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiA+IE5pZW1p
>bmVuIE1pa2EgPHdhcnBAY2MudHV0LmZpPiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+ID4gIEkgd29uZGVy
>IGhvdyBpcyB0aGlzIGRvbmUuIFVubGVzcyB1bml4IG92ZXJjbG9ja3MgdGhlIGNwdSB3aXRo
(several dozen more lines of this junk follow)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Please fix your newsreader. No real newsreader would be stupid enough
to post plain text in base64.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:06:18 +0200, Miguel Alvarez Rodriguez wrote:
> >IkpvbiBBLiBDcnV6IiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBDaHJpcyBDIHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiA+IE5pZW1p
> >bmVuIE1pa2EgPHdhcnBAY2MudHV0LmZpPiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+ID4gIEkgd29uZGVy
> >IGhvdyBpcyB0aGlzIGRvbmUuIFVubGVzcyB1bml4IG92ZXJjbG9ja3MgdGhlIGNwdSB3aXRo
>
> (several dozen more lines of this junk follow)
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> Please fix your newsreader. No real newsreader would be stupid enough
> to post plain text in base64.
Sorry about that, Netscape could read it.
I've compared the speeds. On NT and 9x are exactly the same. And with
a well
configured kernel, Linux is about 40% faster than NT, and with a bad
configured
kernel, it's about 25% faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
