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

Re: Is Windows becoming irrelevant?

  • Subject: Re: Is Windows becoming irrelevant?
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:51:37 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <ru45g.7459$IQ1.1006@fe36.usenetserver.com> <1146425329.579373.85790@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <aYSdnQ2YLaAdj8jZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com> <1206037.lZo70VPoHl@schestowitz.com> <1146428343.941488.317200@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <2815337.NP3WtWymkS@schestowitz.com> <NPmdnfEpFLFLvsvZ4p2dnA@comcast.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Monday 01 May 2006 16:06 \__

> Roy Schestowitz wrote in <2815337.NP3WtWymkS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Mon May 1
> 2006 01:37:
>>> The point is that all the good linux apps run on windows too (the list
>>> you gave). So, if you use windows you get the best of both, while on
>>> linux you'll miss half of them - that makes windows a much superior
>>> choice to me.
>> Okay, but it _does_ change the tune, doesn't it? *smile* We have at least
>> reached a partial state of consent. Every excellent program for GNU/Linux
>> is sooner or later ported to native (non-X-dependent) OS X and Windows. In
>> that sense, Windows users have little to lose other than money to be spent
>> on licences, the loss of security, and the increased need for maintenance
>> (e.g. filesystem corrections, Registry bloat, occasional re-installation).
> Yeah - though some of that software runs considerably slower.  Consider
> Cygwin and the GNU Cygwin toolchain on Windows -- things like running shell
> scripts and the like are very slow compared to Linux on the same system.  I
> suspect that this has something to do with Windows' missing POSIX support,
> though I could be wrong.

I once attempted an amateur's benchmark. I ran pscp on Windows
(Linux->Windows, then Windows->Linux). I used that box to channel large
heaps of media, so I saw this as a good assessment/sanity check opportunity.
Windows was roughly 3 times slower than its equivalent on Linux->Linux with
scp. I'll never forget it. The Windows XP box was very modern and it was
running nothing else (apart from AV and other crucial appendages).

Best wishes,


PS - Another experience I will not forget: Sending files to a colleague with
Windows 2000 box via FTP. On GNU/Linux-SuSE 8.1-KDE-Konqueror (multithreaded
by default), this took about 5 minutes. On Windows-Windows Explorer this
took roughly 3 hours. When my colleague cancelled the download (due to
impracticality of this) and erased what had already been transferred, she
hit the wall and discovered the infamous deletion bug -- that which had
persisted in Windows since its 95 release. It was never fixed, until a few
years ago. Her computer froze for 10 minutes. If I hadn't told her it was a
known bug, she would have rebooted.

I am never doing that again. She can burn her time working like Sisyphus < 
http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html >, but when others are in
the loop, she ought to use a proper research (or lack thereof) platform.
Once of my motives for ditching Windows entirely is was its incapability of
dealing with a deep file structure/hierarchy. When the filesystem is
deficient, there is not much hope for the O/S that sits atop it.

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