[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 17:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Craig White wrote:

> > The faster load times of various Microsoft applications on the Microsoft
> > platform are merely window dressing though...that's an incredibly narrow
> > yardstick to measure system performance.
> Eh? One measures with the yardstick which one uses, you know.
> I use "terminal" windows, which take a lot longer to start
> than "console" windows using WinXP. I use on occasion Open
> Office to view documents that others have produced (I don't
> use it for creating documents), and it takes about a minute
> to load. Acroread also takes a long time to load, which is
> how I view PDFs on the web. It takes Mozilla 7 seconds (just
> measured it) to start a new window, when it's already loaded.
> IE on Win98 takes less than a second on a machine with
> 1/7 the CPU speed, and an equal amount of memory, under
> similar circumstances. (I haven't used WinXP for browsing,
> so I don't know how that compares.)
> Why is it that the very things which I find I need to use
> are the ones I'm not permitted to use for comparison?
You chose Word as the comparison and that was preloaded so it wasn't
fair. OO and Mozilla/FF have optional 'stay loaded' options on WinXP
undoubtedly because people used 'launch' times as a indicator of system
speed and clearly they don't want to appear to be sluggish alternatives
to the Microsoft branded choices.

Anyway, I do have identical machines with similar Firefox/openoffice.org
installations and FC-4 compares favorably if launch time is the


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]