On Monday 22 April 2002 17:39, Damon Register wrote: [snip]
So, now more than ever, I am interested in Linux once again. In the past when I experimented with Linux I thought that it seemed to run a bit slower or require more resources than W95 but with the latest performance of Windows 2000 and XP, I figure that perhaps Linux is now way ahead in the performance area. Is anyone willing to give an honest opinion of W2K/XP versus Linux? Am I correct in thinking that now Linux will blow away W2K/XP?
I dual boot Win2K and SuSE7.3, and have noticed dramatic speed and preformace differences between the two OSes. Linux far outperforms Win2K. The hardware: AMD 1GHz, 700MB RAM, 108GB drive space across 3 harddrives, Sony CDrewriter, GeForce2 video. Some examples: - Burning a disk in Win2K ties up pretty much everything, and the OS is so busy that you cannot do anything else during the burn. In Linux, I can do everything but watch DivX movies while I burn CDs. - Gaming is much faster in Linux. I play the new Return to Wolfenstein, and I get better framerates and can set the video quility higher in Linux than in Win2K. - Drive activity - copying and moving files is much faster in Linux (using Riser FS if that makes any difference). The list goes on and on. I only have Win2K installed to do the few odd tasks that I cannot do in Linux - for example my bank has custom software that is Windows only for example, and I cannot get it to work right using WINE. When I am using Windows for some task, I usually find myself cursing at how slow it is because I am used to the speeds of Linux. C.