login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Linux performance??

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1993 - 4:55 am

Being a user of both (Linux and Win3.1) I would either way argue that
Linux is faster, due to the fact of true 386/486 performance. However
SOME applications MIGHT run faster under DOS/Win3.1, especially those
who are very CPU intensive (and thereby hogs 100% cpu under
DOS/Win3.1), but in normal use I find using Linux faster. Also there
now exists accelerated video drivers for both Win3.1 and Linux/X, and
I'm happily running Linux/X with opaque drags and things - real cool
(I'm using XFree2.0 with ATI GUP LocalBus). Normally it is not only
the absolute speed that counts, you should also consider what you can
be doing while your computer is doing something else. In the
DOS/Win3.1 I normally have no choice, if I do some CPU intensive work,
I just have to sit and watch, drink coffee, read the paper etc. With
Linux/X I can actually start some CPU intensive job, and start working
on my next task, like finally writing that e-mail reply..

However I still boot DOS/Win3.1 whenever I need to do WordProcessing
and Spreadsheet calculation, because I have found no suitable
applications for these things under Linux/X (I'm not into
"programming" documents, like under Emacs/TeX). I've also heard about
other commercial software running under X in general, but there is no
guarante that these have or will be ported to run under Linux/X. Also
I believe that the software prices for "professional/commercial"
software running under Unix/X is more expensive than their DOS/Win3.1
equivalents. 

One last thing to consider is what you actually get. With Linux/X and
the GNU packages that comes with it, you get a _lot_ of software for
free (including a lot of compilers, utilities, editors, window
environment). And if your going to hook your computer to a network
running TCP, you might also consider Linux/X since it usually offers
what most workstations currently offer in the user environment (which
with a few exeptions means X).

I've grown up with DOS/Win3.1 and in the beginning I found the switch
to Linux/X very hard, mostly because I had no experience what so ever
in the field. Also I've done quite a bit programming under DOS/Win3.1.
Now I've finally taken the big step and started using Linux/X for
real, and I must admit I like it better and better. However for
writing reports and creating big spreadsheets, I keep booting
DOS/Win3.1. Hopefully this will not last forever.. Just my $.02 .

Marius Kjeldahl ( s_marius@ira.uka.de )         | Seeking organisation for my
Student in Operational Research, Informatics,   | dissertation and/or future
Economics and Management at the Norwegian Inst. | employment - please "finger"
of Technology/Univ. of Karlsruhe, Germany       | for more information...




--
Marius Kjeldahl ( s_marius@ira.uka.de )         | Seeking organisation for my
Student in Operational Research, Informatics,   | dissertation and/or future
Economics and Management at the Norwegian Inst. | employment - please "finger"
of Technology/Univ. of Karlsruhe, Germany       | for more information...
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Linux performance??, Marius Kjeldahl, (Wed Nov 10, 4:55 am)
speck-geostationary