Ms Admit Windowsxp Sp2 Inferior To Bsd And Linux In many tests.

[qwijibow 0]

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Be sure to download and read th actual 40 page report.

MS compares WindowsXP sp2 to GNU/Linux and FreeBSD, and in many tests, Windows loses.

Example of one instance...

Number of CPU cycles required to start and run a new process..

Linux: 719,000
FreeBSD: 1,032,000
WindowsXP SP2 5,376,000

When i have some free time and i finish the report, ill post back with some more comparasons.

[yordan 10]

Linux: 719,000

Don't you think it's "linux in ascii terminal mode" and not "x-windows or KDE Linux"? Pure Linux should be compared to old ms-dos mode, and maybe ms-dos would win...

[miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG 0]

Don't you think it's "linux in ascii terminal mode" and not "x-windows or KDE Linux"? Pure Linux should be compared to old ms-dos mode, and maybe ms-dos would win...

1064329443[/snapback]

Naah don't think so - even with linux in console competing against ms-dos, it would win hands down... rather when it comes to linux/freebsd in console, there's no comparison at all.. ms-dos gets blown away to nothingness..

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

Hm, seems like it could be an interesting read. I'll have to look through it when I have a bit more time as I'm kinda busy right now. Awesome that MS was the one to do the study and release the results tho

[yordan 10]

By the way, I'm also surprised to see MS publishing this kind of results. I would expect this info to be "strictly for internal use" in the "for future improvement" department.

[qwijibow 0]

Don't you think it's "linux in ascii terminal mode" and not "x-windows or KDE Linux"? Pure Linux should be compared to old ms-dos mode, and maybe ms-dos would win...

You dont seem to understand what is being said.

The Linux kernel can start a new processor thread in that many cpu cycles.
No matter wether you are loading the echo command, or HalfLife-2,
a process thread is a process thread is a process thread as far as the kernel is concerned.

Half-Life2 process will take no longer to start than a simple echo command in terms of cpu cycles.

you are confusing process starting, with program and resource loading

[yordan 10]

you are confusing process starting, with program and resource loading

So, if it's the time for forking a process, it's normal that a full multi-task system like Linux does the job faster than Windows, which is not really multi-task nor multi-thread.Nevertheless, I would say that the real time is the time seen from the user part : time for starting the main process, malloc the needed memory, loading initial data and giving first user prompt.
So, real time for loading a program and giving a result (echo "hello world" or calculating the 50th decimal value of pi for instance) would be the real way of testing several Operating systems.
The old way of calculating the number of Mips or MegaFlops for each hardware for each OS was a good approach some years ago.

[qwijibow 0]

Its got nothing to do with forking.
Its got nothing to do with Multi-users.

And windows IS a multi-tasking OS.

I would say that the real time is the time seen from the user part

and the time seen by the user is CPU cycles required divided by CPU speed.
cpu cycles required is a very good measurement, because it is not effected by CPU load, nor other things that would interere with a clock method of timing.

again you misunderstand.

with a 3Ghz cpu, 700,000 cpu cycles is only a tiny tiny fraction of a secong... As is 5 million cycles.

this is not a performance benchmark.

just an indication of kernel sophistication.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Well, this is definitely not surprising. Windows already shows the problem when the user is using the operating system from the start.xboxrulz

[Jguy101 0]

Well, I think this was already known amongst the Linux and BSD communities...it's just that now, Microsoft has proved it.

[InitialDriveGTR 0]

I think it is hilarious that micro$oft is actually publicizing this. I mean, in all honesty, i think that micro$oft exagerated as to how little resources etc. their windows os took, and they probably over exagerated the linux kernel based Os's took (or at least they i think that they would never have publicized this). Personaly, i think that micro$soft should try to implement the linux kernel in the next windows installment (not vista. or at least not yet.).

[derouge 0]

Wow, interesting. I don't really honestly have the time nor energy to read a 40 page report, but I may download it later and glance through. It's entertaining, at the very least. I've liked Linux so far, and this report might provide even more reasons to stick with it!

[unimatrix 0]

And remind me, how much BSD code does Windows have in it again? Last check there were some major IP/stack and Kernel stuff almost cut and pasted from BSD to Windows NT/2k/XP in the last few years. Sometimes I wonder how Windows can take BSD, screw it up and Apple can take BSD and improve it for the average user...

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

BSD technologies are easily taken due to the licensing issue. That's why I don't like the BSD licence.The basic rule is that as long as you state the author and his copyrights, you can use the code and modify it and slap it to your own system.That's why I prefer the GPL better.GPL doesn't allow that.You can close-source a BSD licenced code.xboxrulz

[unimatrix 0]

which is the exact reason why I like the BSD license. At work, we won't touch GPL with a 10 foot stick even for internal programs. Just like anything we descide to release Opensource goes with the BSD licenese. I will make the arguement that true people that like Opensource for the sake of totally free (as in speech and beer) software go with BSD licensed products. Before I went to work there (and Apple Shake was released) they had a video editing system that was in house and written expressly with NetBSD running on Alpha. The program used some highly intergrated and rewritten kernel processes. It was fair to say that they had written their own OS based on NetBSD designed to compiste scenes and nothing else. It was small light (in terms of ditro size) and allowed the max amount of the CPU to be used for rendering. Actually it is far more effecient that our current systems, but with death of Alpha and rise of Macintosh in UNix land it was decided it would be cheaper and easier to switch to industry standard applications. They were thinking of selling the OS for video production companies still running ALPHA, but like I said, those days are over...poor Alpha...Still, when I release code, I do it under BSD if I don't want to make money from it and I don't really care if someone else does. If they can, good for them, they were smarter than I was or put forth the effort I didn't want too. Hell I'm happy as a lark if someone uses my code.Personally I find that most GPL folks want free beer and don't care so much about the speech part. BSD folk want the freedom of speech, usage, and if you can use it to buy a fine bottle of wine: more power to you!GPL = Freedom of Speech* (please see dislaimer below)BSD = Freedom of Speech* (Just attach the copyright notice please, thank you)