On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 08:46, Randy Kramer wrote: > Linux has some problems. To get the performance of IE5 and Word97 on > Win95 with 48 MB and a 233 MHz processor, I needed 256 MB on a 700 MHz > processor (running Konqueror, primarily). (I run AbiWord on Windows, > when I'm not running Word97.)
You are not making a fair comparison. If you were running KDE 1.0 or 1.1, then that would be about the same as Win95 (both were written for the same level of hardware performance, at around the same time frame), and you would see a great performance "improvement". The real issue is KDE 2.x, which is a known resource hog -- but then, so are WinME and Win2k and WinXP. And again, these are more accurate comparisons, since they were all developed for similar hardware performance at around the same time period. If you run a lighter window manager (with no "desktop environment") you will get much better performance than the current MS counterparts. The other thing to keep in mind is that with MS apps like IE and Office, they are so tightly integrated into the OS itself that loading and running them is much more efficient that loading/running non-MS apps like Netscape or StarOffice in Windows. Heck, most of the components required by Office and IE are already loaded and running in the OS itself! This is also why Wine has such difficulty trying to make those apps run. MSOffice will *never* run (so the Wine developers say) for the above reasons, but I think they might have IE working ... I can't say for sure, though. > Linux will get there one day, and is already there at the server level. > The advantage of Linux is that it provides competition for Microsoft, > which is why I'm sticking with it -- trying to learn more, improve it > (if I can), and support it. As a mater of fact, most of the anecdotal evidence about Linux out-performing WIndows has to do with non-GUI linux servers vs. WinNT Server and its built-in (and non-removable) GUI. Also, older versions of KDE (1.x, 1.1.x) did perform quite quickly in comparison to their contemporary Win95 and Win98 counterparts. > I think it is in the best interests of all of us to push for viable > competition to Microsoft. Agreed. Choice is always a benefit to the consumer/user. > It is unfortunate that some people feel mislead (myself included) by the > "promises" that we thought we heard about Linux. I want to be careful > about what I say about Linux -- I'd rather have somebody be pleasantly > surprised than unpleasantly surprised. It's too bad you feel that way, but like I said above, you need to make fair comparisons. Windows 95 was written and optimized for late 486 and early Pentium systems with 4 to 8 MB RAM. Of course it's going to fly on a Pentium 233 with 48 MB RAM. Early versions of KDE were optimized for the same hardware, and generally did outperform their Windows counterparts. And again, running a lighter window manager like Sawfish or Blackbox or Windowmaker will also speed things up. Dave -- Beware the wrath of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
