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: Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:21:27 -0500
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • 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> <2026846.ZARVOqsoq1@schestowitz.com>
  • User-agent: 40tude_Dialog/
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1105499
On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:51:37 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> 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).

Your claim makes no sense.  There is no diffference between sending and
receiving in this context, the network transactions are exactly the same.
The only difference is the programs used to do the transfer.  So what you
proved was the the scp program you used on Windows was inefficient.

> 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.

That's just because the Explorer FTP component is a piece of crap.  Using
the command line FTP or any of the free GUI ones out there works as well as
anything on Linux.  Don't act like there isn't crap software on Linux, you
just don't use what doesn't work very well.

> 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'm not sure what you're talking about here.  If this is such a well known
bug, you should be able to provide some reference to it.  Rigth?

> 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.

What the hell are you talking about?

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