Re: Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-15 Thread Micha Feigin
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Andy Morris wrote: Just been browsing and came across this dicussion, and thought i might be able to give some input. I'm a software grad (well this summer) and use both linux(gentoo 2.6.xxx cant remember specifically) and xp pro sp1 as home os's

Re: Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Andy Morris
Just been browsing and came across this dicussion, and thought i might be able to give some input. I'm a softwaregrad (well this summer) and use both linux(gentoo 2.6.xxx cant remember specifically) and xp pro sp1 as home os's (games, dev etc) and when building a fairly small application i

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Kent West
Andy Morris wrote: So XP and Gentoo Linux on the same box, and xp still beats it hands down (it only improved by around 30 secs), which really dissapointed me. It makes me want to use my xp box for more stuff than previously, which i had been trying not since i like using kde over the Windows

Re: Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:23:48PM +0100, Andy Morris wrote: Now one thing I should have mentioned earlier is that the app was written in Java (compiled using Sun's jdk1.4.2 (not gentoo's blackdown since it's too buggy)) and we are therefore also testing the platform implementation of the VM

Re: Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Andy Morris
Just been browsing and came across this dicussion, and thought i might be able to give some input. I'm a software grad (well this summer) and use both linux(gentoo 2.6.xxx cant remember specifically) and xp pro sp1 as home os's (games, dev etc) and when building a fairly small application i

Re: Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Mark Roach
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 00:13 +0100, Andy Morris wrote: ... i made a simple program to count from 0 to a parameter x number of times, test data was to count 0-9 100 times. XP box did it in 3mins 10 secs, linux 5 mins 4 secs ( i did this numerous times and results were always v

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread dircha
Mark Roach wrote: On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 00:13 +0100, Andy Morris wrote: ... i made a simple program to count from 0 to a parameter x number of times, test data was to count 0-9 100 times. XP box did it in 3mins 10 secs, linux 5 mins 4 secs ( i did this numerous times and results were

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Katipo
Andy Morris wrote: Just been browsing and came across this dicussion, and thought i might be able to give some input. I'm a software grad (well this summer) and use both linux(gentoo 2.6.xxx cant remember specifically) and xp pro sp1 as home os's (games, dev etc) and when building a fairly

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2004-04-14 Thread Paul
This certainly may have implications for computation intensive applications. I don't think it would overly surprise anyone if it were discovered that Sun's Linux JVM performs poorer than its Window's counterpart. I'm sure such tests have already been performed in detail elsewhere.

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread David Wright
Hi, I want to benchmark my desktop system running in Linux (Gnome, XF86 v3.x, 2.4.5 kernel) against itself running Win98se. Is there a benchmark program that will work in both enviornments to give me an accurate benchmark? No, of course not. Different systems do different things well and

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread JakeCatfox
I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. It's a perfectly legitimate question to want to know if one thing performs better than another, and if so, in what areas, and by how much. Human senses are inaccurate to judge things such as this at times, especially if differences

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Erik Steffl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... That was not a very helpful answer at all. It's as bad as RTFM. RTFM is good answer, even more so when it includes info on which FM to R. sorry, I don't know any comprehensive benchmarks... depending on what you want to test quake might be useful. erik

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 01:41:33AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. It's a perfectly legitimate question to want to know if one thing performs better than another, and if so, in what areas, and by how much. Human senses are

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread David Wright
I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. Au contraire. You got a rather information-packed answer that is as straight as possible, dosed up with a bit of good-natured joshing. You now know: Process-cyclingUnix Threads manipulation Windows FP

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread tabanna
Jake Catfox asked ~ a benchmark cross-platform between Mac and PC. So why not Windows and Linux? ~ some say, that, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] work-unit is a great cross-platform measure. The SETI web pages have some interesting Stats on CPUs/ Operating Systems ~ there are Links to {if I recall}

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread nate
quote who= Hi, I want to benchmark my desktop system running in Linux (Gnome, XF86 v3.x, 2.4.5 kernel) against itself running Win98se. Is there a benchmark program that will work in both enviornments to give me an accurate benchmark? not really. the 2 systems are so totally different it

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread nate
quote who= I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. It's a perfectly legitimate question to want to know if one thing performs better than another, and if so, in what areas, and by how much. Human senses are inaccurate to judge things such as this at times, especially

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Damon Muller
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hi, I want to benchmark my desktop system running in Linux (Gnome, XF86 v3.x, 2.4.5 kernel) against itself running Win98se. Is there a benchmark program that will work in both enviornments to give me an accurate benchmark? Quake 3 Arena. Of course, it might not

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Shri Shrikumar
No, of course not. Different systems do different things well and poorly. For example: Write a benchmark that starts and stops 10,000 processes and Linux will beat Windows hands-down. Write a benchmark that starts and stops 10,000 threads and Windows will beat Linux hands-down (if it's

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread dman
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:38:51PM +, Shri Shrikumar wrote: | No, of course not. Different systems do different things well and | poorly. For example: Write a benchmark that starts and stops 10,000 | processes and Linux will beat Windows hands-down. Write a benchmark | that starts and

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread dman
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 12:52:52AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Is there a benchmark program [...] to give me an accurate benchmark? The short answer is No. You can measure certain things, that you are interested in, but there is always the problem (as someone mentioned) that once the

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:52:47AM -0500, dman wrote: Some programmers believe that threads should not be used at all, but only processes that communicate via some sort of IPC. Those programmers also believe that if your OS has processes that aren't lightweight enough for that to be feasible,

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. Take a bench, a marker, and use the marker put a mark on the bench. That's a benchmark. Straight enough for you? Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Kirk Strauser
At 2001-12-01T05:52:52Z, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I want to benchmark my desktop system running in Linux (Gnome, XF86 v3.x, 2.4.5 kernel) against itself running Win98se. Is there a benchmark program that will work in both enviornments to give me an accurate benchmark? No offense, but

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
* Shri Shrikumar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: No, of course not. Different systems do different things well and poorly. For example: Write a benchmark that starts and stops 10,000 processes and Linux will beat Windows hands-down. Write a benchmark that starts and stops 10,000

Re: Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-12-01 Thread dman
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:53:15PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: | I really don't need the preaching. I wanted a straight answer. | | Take a bench, a marker, and use the marker put a mark on the | bench. That's a benchmark. Hehe. This

Linux/Windows Universal Benchmark

2001-11-30 Thread JakeCatfox
Hi, I want to benchmark my desktop system running in Linux (Gnome, XF86 v3.x, 2.4.5 kernel) against itself running Win98se. Is there a benchmark program that will work in both enviornments to give me an accurate benchmark? Thanks, Deven Gallo