Re: NEWS - Linux really sucks. It's for people who want to build their own washing machine.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
Hadron wrote:

> NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>
>>
>> No, Frankie Boy, as usual, you're again WRONG! Linux is between 30 to 50%
>> faster at downloads than XP. If you had both running, you'd be able to
>
> I keep hearing this. Can you prove it? I see no difference between
> Debian, Ubuntu or XP in download speeds on the same router.

Go here and run your tests ...

http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest?loc=97

I ran tests between XP and Mandriva back in April, 2005. I know because I
saved the charts the benchmarking produced. Results:

Download Speed with Mandriva: 4114 kbps
Download Speed with XP: 2405 kbps

Upload speed: 462 kbps ... essentially the same for both stacks

The tests were repeatable with always very similar results.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
 
Re: NEWS - Linux really sucks. It's for people who want to buildtheir own washing machine.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
8gte95-j2q.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 2/26/08 7:11 PM:

....
>>>> Linux is free, but how valuable is your time?
>>>
>>> Linux is $0... Windows costs lots...
>>>
>>> It takes me a lot of time to muck around with windows ... very little
>>> with Linux.
>>>
>>> ... Linux is a great deal :-)
>>
>> Sure, but a great deal of what? :)
>>
>
> Obviously, a great deal of trouble, from
> most Wintrools' standpoint. -)
>
> Clearly Linux threatens Microsoft's dominance of the
> desktop, and threatens to block Microsoft's absorbtion of
> servers, phones/mobiles/laptops/notebooks, and embedded
> devices.

The threat on the desktop seems, for now, minimal. As desktop distros get
better - which is dependant on a growing amounts of co-operation between
project - I suspect that risk will be greater.

> And of course MacOSX, once Linux has been knifed, will
> follow suit, probably a little more slowly but the
> most likely scenario I see is Microsoft buying Apple
> out, and getting into the hardware business.

I doubt that! When do you think this would happen?

> It will convert Apple's hardware into high-end PC systems using a modified
> Windows OS, then spin it off. For various devices such as the iPhone --
> sorry, I mean, the aZune -- Microsoft will modify them as it sees fit,
> searching for profitability.

They have failed many times with such things...

> For as everyone knows Windows Is The Best OS There Ever Was(tm).
> Pay no attention to the bugs behind the curtain!
>
> -)




--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
 
NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> No, Frankie Boy, as usual, you're again WRONG! Linux is between 30 to 50%
>>> faster at downloads than XP. If you had both running, you'd be able to
>>
>> I keep hearing this. Can you prove it? I see no difference between
>> Debian, Ubuntu or XP in download speeds on the same router.
>
> Go here and run your tests ...
>
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest?loc=97
>
> I ran tests between XP and Mandriva back in April, 2005. I know because I
> saved the charts the benchmarking produced. Results:
>
> Download Speed with Mandriva: 4114 kbps
> Download Speed with XP: 2405 kbps
>
> Upload speed: 462 kbps ... essentially the same for both stacks
>
> The tests were repeatable with always very similar results.
>

OK, I tried. Unfortunately the applet wouldn't run on Debian Lenny with
iceweasel - it just sat there doing nothing. So rather than dwell on it
I tried this site:

http://www.speedtest.net

My first test revealed a HUGE advantage to Linux BUT I then ran it again
and the numbers equalled out indicating that the first test I did with
Linux had had a freer route before I rebooted into XP. So I chose a
another (shorter) route and got:

XP: download : 13589, upload : 956
Linux : download : 13570, upload 973

So pretty much identical.

These types of tests need to be repeated to ensure some sort of average
to offset peaks and troughs in inter-node traffic.

Possibly the stack management SW comes into bigger play in noisy/error
prone links.

I'd be interested to hear some more results.
 
Hadron wrote:

> NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Frankie Boy, as usual, you're again WRONG! Linux is between 30 to
>>>> 50% faster at downloads than XP. If you had both running, you'd be able
>>>> to
>>>
>>> I keep hearing this. Can you prove it? I see no difference between
>>> Debian, Ubuntu or XP in download speeds on the same router.
>>
>> Go here and run your tests ...
>>
>> http://www.broadbandreports.com/stest?loc=97
>>
>> I ran tests between XP and Mandriva back in April, 2005. I know because I
>> saved the charts the benchmarking produced. Results:
>>
>> Download Speed with Mandriva: 4114 kbps
>> Download Speed with XP: 2405 kbps
>>
>> Upload speed: 462 kbps ... essentially the same for both stacks
>>
>> The tests were repeatable with always very similar results.
>>
>
> OK, I tried. Unfortunately the applet wouldn't run on Debian Lenny with
> iceweasel - it just sat there doing nothing. So rather than dwell on it
> I tried this site:
>
> http://www.speedtest.net
>
> My first test revealed a HUGE advantage to Linux BUT I then ran it again
> and the numbers equalled out indicating that the first test I did with
> Linux had had a freer route before I rebooted into XP. So I chose a
> another (shorter) route and got:
>
> XP: download : 13589, upload : 956
> Linux : download : 13570, upload 973
>
> So pretty much identical.
>
> These types of tests need to be repeated to ensure some sort of average
> to offset peaks and troughs in inter-node traffic.
>
> Possibly the stack management SW comes into bigger play in noisy/error
> prone links.
>
> I'd be interested to hear some more results.

I agree. I'm on cable and results can vary throughout the day depending on
how busy this cable segment can be. When I did those tests back when, I did
quite a number throughout the day and the results were pretty consistent.
The results were nicely graphed compared to what I just saw when I looked
again at that link. In those days, cable was relatively new around here
and the subscriber base on my segment was small compared to today, I'd
guess. The net wasn't as clogged up with things like streaming video
either. :-)

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
 
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:


> Linux /saves/ time. Downloads, for one thing, are generally quite a bit
> faster, at least faster than XP.

I've been hearing that crap for years but have never been able to
substantiate the claim.

File it along with "Linux has never had a problem with font rendering".

Yet another Linux advocate's lie.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:fq2kei$b8e$1@registered.motzarella.org:

<SNIP>

I just postred a week or 2 ago that the Ubuntu install I had running
d/l'd at upwards of 30% faster than XP.

I d/l'd a giant file in Ubuntu, and it was coming down at 450 KB/s, which
I never see on this PC in Windows.

Immediately after it was done, I rebooted back into Windows, and d/l'd
the same file from the same server, and it came down @ 350 KB/s.
Immediately after that finished, I once again booted to Ubuntu to d/l
again....sure enough, it was @ 450 KB/s.

Find a 100+ MB d/l and try it to see if you see the same results.




>
> XP: download : 13589, upload : 956
> Linux : download : 13570, upload 973
>
> So pretty much identical.
>
> These types of tests need to be repeated to ensure some sort of
> average to offset peaks and troughs in inter-node traffic.
>
> Possibly the stack management SW comes into bigger play in noisy/error
> prone links.
>
> I'd be interested to hear some more results.
>
 
Re: NEWS - Linux really sucks. It's for people who want to buildtheir own washing machine.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:

> Linux /saves/ time. Downloads, for one thing, are generally quite a bit
> faster, at least faster than XP.

I did a similar comparison about 10 years ago, except I was comparing
Windows 95 to OS/2v3 (Warp).

Warp was faster by about 10-20%
 
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:04 -0600, alt wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> Linux /saves/ time. Downloads, for one thing, are generally quite a bit
>> faster, at least faster than XP.
>
> I did a similar comparison about 10 years ago, except I was comparing
> Windows 95 to OS/2v3 (Warp).
>
> Warp was faster by about 10-20%

No surprise there.
Warp was really fast, and reliable especially if you had that 3rd party Com
driver which was written by someone other than IBM.
The name escapes me but it made my then US Robotics Courier HST modems fly.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:46:09 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:04 -0600, alt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>>
>>> Linux /saves/ time. Downloads, for one thing, are generally quite a bit
>>> faster, at least faster than XP.
>>
>> I did a similar comparison about 10 years ago, except I was comparing
>> Windows 95 to OS/2v3 (Warp).
>>
>> Warp was faster by about 10-20%
>
> No surprise there.
> Warp was really fast, and reliable especially if you had that 3rd party Com
> driver which was written by someone other than IBM.
> The name escapes me but it made my then US Robotics Courier HST modems fly.

I just remembered the name of those drivers.
It was the Ray Gwinn drivers that replaced the com.sys etc stock drivers
and utilized the 16550 buffers better resulting in more reliable transfers.

Ahh the good old days!!
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:46:09 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:04 -0600, alt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:23:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux /saves/ time. Downloads, for one thing, are generally quite a
>>>> bit faster, at least faster than XP.
>>>
>>> I did a similar comparison about 10 years ago, except I was comparing
>>> Windows 95 to OS/2v3 (Warp).
>>>
>>> Warp was faster by about 10-20%
>>
>> No surprise there.
>> Warp was really fast, and reliable especially if you had that 3rd party
>> Com driver which was written by someone other than IBM.
>> The name escapes me but it made my then US Robotics Courier HST modems
>> fly.
>
> I just remembered the name of those drivers.
> It was the Ray Gwinn drivers that replaced the com.sys etc stock drivers
> and utilized the 16550 buffers better resulting in more reliable
> transfers.
>
> Ahh the good old days!!

Weren't they! :-)

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
 
Back
Top