Old 486 computer & external CD reader advice needed

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:34, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > 
> >>So do many other apps, like my web browsers. I think this
> >>qualifies as "creating a new process".
> > 
> > 
> > No, it has next to nothing to do with process creation.
> > 'cat' would be closer.
> 
> I know what I'm talking about, we're just talking about
> different things, using the same words, I suppose.

"Process" means something very specific in unix-like
systems.  It's what you get when the fork() system
call completes successfully, and you can benchmark
it by measuring forks/second.

> I have 15+ years of experience optimizing real time
> operation on telephony equipment, so I do know.
> 
>  From a user's perspective, Linux is noticeably slower
> on the same hardware.

Not necessarily.

>  From a cycle-by-cycle perspective, Windows (when quiescent)
> is not a cycle hog. I find that CPU intensive apps (like
> multiprecision numerical computations, Drhystone, etc.)
> when compiled using DJGPP and run under Windows XP, 95, and
> 98 runs in the same time as the same source compiled and
> run under Linux.

Yes, if you aren't making system calls, the OS is not
all that relevant except for it's time-slicing overhead.
Try running a few hundred of your computations at once
in separate processes so you have a chance at noticing.

> I haven't specifically timed actual context times or
> interrupt latencies. But for actually starting applications,
> Linux is definitely and noticeably slower.

I'll agree if you always qualify that as "X applications".
I'm sure you realize that many useful things do not
require the creation of a screen window.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com