[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Matt, anybody... E/L vs E/D?
Here are my Executor 2 speedo test results under linux 2.0 and
Windows95. (on a 486dx2-50 with a slooo...w hard drive)
Windows95 linux-svga linux X
video 7.6 4.6 2.7
cpu 8.8 7.9 7.9
disk 2.2 2.0 2.0
My question is this;
Linux 2.0 is linux at its finest, all 32 bit and really fast drivers,
(tested with the fastest X server available too). Windows95
is all 16 bit with a .hfv volume to slow thing down as well...
So why the hell is it so much faster in every damn area, and would it
completely destroy Linux when the VCPU and a 32 bit port comes on line?
Maybe you should write a 16 bit version for Linux to see if you could make
it go faster. (Yes, I know, it was a joke)
I only tried linux to see if I could wring a few more bits/sec out of
Executor. Tried and failed that is;)
Makes you wonder why the linux/os2'ers are always bagging Windows95.
It is also by far the easiest platform to print out PostScript files when
you don't have a postscript printer.
Just the facts maam...
Michelle;)
Follow-Ups: