Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st May 2008 08:05 UTC, submitted by Mohammed Saleh
Thread beginning with comment 315024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: lots of inaccurate information.
by bosco_bearbank on Wed 21st May 2008 11:27
in reply to "RE: lots of inaccurate information."
RE[2]: lots of inaccurate information.
by tonywob on Wed 21st May 2008 16:50
in reply to "RE: lots of inaccurate information."
RE[3]: lots of inaccurate information.
by WereCatf on Wed 21st May 2008 17:02
in reply to "RE[2]: lots of inaccurate information."
RE[2]: lots of inaccurate information.
by Redeeman on Wed 21st May 2008 19:44
in reply to "RE: lots of inaccurate information."






Member since:
2006-02-15
the worst part is, most people believe 100% what random bozos put on their blogs, as it if was absolute truth.
And are you claiming then that the blogger's result were false? He was receiving lower performance in several important applications under Linux than under XP. I do suspect it's the CFS scheduler which just tries to balance everything instead of giving one application way much more CPU time than another one. Linux did beat Windows hands-down in multitasking in his test after all.
I think I'll do a similar test on my laptop, though I'm gonna test Gentoo, Mandriva and XP. If Linux scores lower then are you going to claim my results false, too?
IMHO his tests were pretty much OK and valid. It doesn't really matter what is the cause in these things, it's the end-result which matters. One can debate things for all eternity if one wishes but no end-user will care about that.