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).
By coincidence, I wrote a VB script to kick off a smallish pscp transfer
each night. It's quick - don't know the exact speed, but I'll check it next
time I'm at the client site.
> 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.
I recently wrote a command line ftp script, which runs from Window. It
downloads a 2.4mb Excel file in less than 10 seconds from an IBM ftp site.
Seems pretty quick to me.
> 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
Leave it to a Linux "advocate" to bring up Windows bugs from 10 years ago.
This is why you guys can't be taken seriously.
> 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
You mean something like
> When the filesystem is deficient, there is not
> much hope for the O/S that sits atop it.
Is this what you repeat to yourself each time Windows 95% PC market share
numbers are tossed at you?