I didn't make the claim that Windows had better performance than Mandrake, I was responding to that claim. Actually, Windows 95 does perform quicker than Mandrake 9.0, but that's not a fair comparison (it also out performs Windows NT/2000/XP). A fair Windows vs Mandrake comparison would use Windows 2000 or XP and I don't believe either of those will out perform Mandrake on the same box.
As for Windows requiring more than a pentium class machine, Microsoft says the minimum hardware for XP is a pentium (or K6 and some others) running at 300mhz. Now, does anyone really expect to run XP on that platform? No but that fact that it can run on that platform means it can't be optimized for the later Intel and AMD chips. Anyway, my original point was that there are simple optimizations that will give an immediate boost to performance while there are others, that have a marginal return. On my hardware, removing unused modules from the kernel has improved performance dramatically. Optimizing it for the AMD chips, though, does not, by itself seem to make a major difference. As a matter of fact, one of my biggest performance improvement doesn't even involve the kernel. It's simply running hdparm to improve the hard drive performance. Joeb -------Original Message------- From: et <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 02/25/03 06:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > -------Original Message------- > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > <snip> > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows > > performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > due > to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. Please... this just is not a fact. this is basicly WRONG in my personal experiance. M$ just plain sucks compared to Mandrake-Linux on at least _MY_ hardware, I don't claim to speak for "anyone who dual boots windows, and as long as I am included in your statement, neither do you. > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize > Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep > an > open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. > > Robert Crawford > <snip> > > Robert, > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized > than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to > optimization. not true, you need much more starting with win ME > > If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your system, > recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and after). > Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling it should > give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that on my > systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used in the > kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the CPU > (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but the chip > optimization seemed to have little impact). > > Joeb >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
