> On Sat, 18 Mar 1995, Cuthalion / Sliced Bread wrote:
>
> > I totally agree. However, a lot of the overhead of Windows is
> > not from the graphics, but from poorly written code and just general
> > multi-tasking overhead. (Linux also runs MUCH slower than DOS, despite
> > its lack of nifty graphics..)
>
> What's the deal with Linux anyway? Is it supposed to just be really god
> at multitasking? Why is it slower than DOS if it totally 32 bit?
Because it's doing more. I don't know too much about Linux, but
I know that the minimum machine that it's usable on is basically a 486
with 8 meg or so of RAM. (I think a fast 386 may be OK too) DOS, on the
other hand works acceptably with 8088's. However, a lot of this is not
due to the OS, but the programmes developed for it. Additionally,
multitasking has a !%^$load of overhead. Everytime you switch tasks, you
have to basically set everything the processor and FPU know. 32 bit
makes things faster, but not THAT much faster...
-----------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 01:09 EET
From: DAVE MCCARTER <50VE3GSO@qstar.fanshawec.on.ca>
Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:2077] Re: [INERTIA-TAL
Hi,
As for a new operating system, a friend of my brothers is programming one. _IT_will be the next operating system. It _really_ blows Microsoft outa the h2o.