Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP - Linux ; http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

  1. Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP


  2. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to thestandards of Windows XP

    On May 5, 5:02 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720


    The comparison was with 64 bit Linux v 32 bit Windows and it so
    happened that the data in question took up twice as much space on a 64
    bit system.

    If the computer used 64 bit Windows XP then similar memory management
    problems would probably occur. Similarly if it used 32 bit Linux then
    the problem would probably not occur.

    Hence this comparison is like comparing apples with oranges.

  3. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:11:45 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
    wrote:

    >On May 5, 5:02 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720

    >
    >The comparison was with 64 bit Linux v 32 bit Windows and it so
    >happened that the data in question took up twice as much space on a 64
    >bit system.
    >
    >If the computer used 64 bit Windows XP then similar memory management
    >problems would probably occur. Similarly if it used 32 bit Linux then
    >the problem would probably not occur.
    >
    >Hence this comparison is like comparing apples with oranges.


    There sould be a factor two, then, but the poster said:

    "Linux lags after 1 or 2. Windows doesn't lag even with 8-12
    running at once"

    Try harder.

  4. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to thestandards of Windows XP

    On Mon, 05 May 2008 10:39:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > peterwn writes:
    >
    >> On May 5, 5:02 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >>> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720

    >>
    >> The comparison was with 64 bit Linux v 32 bit Windows and it so
    >> happened that the data in question took up twice as much space on a 64
    >> bit system.

    >
    > Surely not? When I pointed this out the whole of COLA, led by Peter
    > Koehlmann, called me an idiot and a liar.
    >
    > Accordingly to COLA, 64 bit Linux is "blazingly fast" and "all just
    > works". Neither, of course, are true.
    >
    > etc etc etc


    If linux is so bad, why do you continue to use it?



    --
    Rick

  5. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    Micoshaft fraudster DFS wrote on behalf of half wits from micoshaft
    corporation:

    > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720



    WINDUMMIES ARE NOT EDUCATED ON LINUX AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

    Is that you again doofus?

  6. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    7 wrote:
    > Micoshaft fraudster DFS wrote on behalf of half wits from micoshaft
    > corporation:
    >
    >> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720

    >
    >
    > WINDUMMIES ARE NOT EDUCATED ON LINUX AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY


    "Linux lags after 1 or 2. Windows doesn't lag even with 8-12 running at
    once."
    > Is that you again doofus?


    That's Linux falling down again.




  7. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    Micoshaft fraudster DFS wrote on behalf of half wits from Micoshaft
    Corporation:


    > "Linux lags after 1 or 2. Windows doesn't lag even with 8-12 running at
    > once."
    >> Is that you again doofus?


    > That's Linux falling down again.



    WINDUMMIES ARE NOT EDUCATED ON LINUX AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
    AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO COMPARE LINUX SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE.

    Is that you doofus?


  8. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    7 wrote:

    > WINDUMMIES ARE NOT EDUCATED ON LINUX AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
    > AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO COMPARE LINUX SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE.


    "Linux lags after 1 or 2. Windows doesn't lag even with 8-12 running at
    once." http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720



    > Is that you doofus?


    That's Linux falling down again. Don't look at it too long, or it will
    crash:

    "...sometimes the system freezes even though I didn't even touch the mouse
    or the keyboard."
    http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/vie...323145&t=27550





  9. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to thestandards of Windows XP

    On May 5, 8:39 pm, Hadron wrote:
    > peterwn writes:
    > > On May 5, 5:02 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > >>http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720

    >
    > > The comparison was with 64 bit Linux v 32 bit Windows and it so
    > > happened that the data in question took up twice as much space on a 64
    > > bit system.

    >
    > Surely not? When I pointed this out the whole of COLA, led by Peter
    > Koehlmann, called me an idiot and a liar.
    >
    > Accordingly to COLA, 64 bit Linux is "blazingly fast" and "all just
    > works". Neither, of course, are true.
    >


    This shows an almost complete misunderstanding of basic computing
    principles. When one thinks about it, there are things that a 64 bit
    computer will do better, but also things that it will do worse. A
    computer user inclined to buy a 64 bit machine will most probably find
    that it is 'blazingly fast' for some apps and find that it is about
    the same as 32 bit for other apps.

    If a computer is being used predominantly for a particular
    application, then one would buy the hardware most appropriate for that
    application. For example years ago, when 64 bit computers were rare,
    a racetrack in Australia deliberately chose a 64 bit computer for its
    parimutuals betting since the total bets on a horse would sometimes
    exceed 32 bit capacity (especially as off-track TAB bets were
    included) and it did not want to use subroutines or multiple
    arithmetic instructions for speed reasons, the machine being under
    enormous pressure in the 20 minutes or so before a race starts but
    almost idle the rest of the time. The consequences of a processing
    failure in that 20 minute period are almost unthinkable and would
    result in cruel and unusual punishments being inflicted on those
    responsible for the system.

    In the case mentioned, all that may be required to improve memory
    utilisation is to re-compile the program specifying the item lengths
    for the arrays rather than letting them 'default' to the target
    machine's byte 'width'.

    Quick and dirty fixes would be to install 32 bit Linux or to buy more
    memory. The latter is probably the most pragmatic solution, since
    memory is pretty damn cheap nowadays. This is illustrated by
    Microsoft's decision to strip out memory saving code that was in
    Office 2003 when releasing Office 2007, and by those porting Debian
    Linux to ASUS Eee being advised not to bother with a swap partition in
    the flash ram 'hard disk'.



  10. Re: Linux memory management and responsiveness not up to the standards of Windows XP

    On Mon, 05 May 2008 13:31:29 -0700, peterwn wrote:

    > On May 5, 8:39 pm, Hadron wrote:
    >> peterwn writes:
    >> > On May 5, 5:02 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >> >>http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40720

    >>
    >> > The comparison was with 64 bit Linux v 32 bit Windows and it so
    >> > happened that the data in question took up twice as much space on a 64
    >> > bit system.

    >>
    >> Surely not? When I pointed this out the whole of COLA, led by Peter
    >> Koehlmann, called me an idiot and a liar.
    >>
    >> Accordingly to COLA, 64 bit Linux is "blazingly fast" and "all just
    >> works". Neither, of course, are true.
    >>
    >>

    > This shows an almost complete misunderstanding of basic computing
    > principles. When one thinks about it, there are things that a 64 bit
    > computer will do better, but also things that it will do worse. A
    > computer user inclined to buy a 64 bit machine will most probably find
    > that it is 'blazingly fast' for some apps and find that it is about the
    > same as 32 bit for other apps.
    >
    > If a computer is being used predominantly for a particular application,
    > then one would buy the hardware most appropriate for that application.
    > For example years ago, when 64 bit computers were rare, a racetrack in
    > Australia deliberately chose a 64 bit computer for its parimutuals betting
    > since the total bets on a horse would sometimes exceed 32 bit capacity
    > (especially as off-track TAB bets were included) and it did not want to
    > use subroutines or multiple arithmetic instructions for speed reasons, the
    > machine being under enormous pressure in the 20 minutes or so before a
    > race starts but almost idle the rest of the time. The consequences of a
    > processing failure in that 20 minute period are almost unthinkable and
    > would result in cruel and unusual punishments being inflicted on those
    > responsible for the system.
    >
    > In the case mentioned, all that may be required to improve memory
    > utilisation is to re-compile the program specifying the item lengths for
    > the arrays rather than letting them 'default' to the target machine's byte
    > 'width'.
    >
    > Quick and dirty fixes would be to install 32 bit Linux or to buy more
    > memory. The latter is probably the most pragmatic solution, since memory
    > is pretty damn cheap nowadays. This is illustrated by Microsoft's
    > decision to strip out memory saving code that was in Office 2003 when
    > releasing Office 2007, and by those porting Debian Linux to ASUS Eee being
    > advised not to bother with a swap partition in the flash ram 'hard disk'.


    The performance problem was on Ubuntu 6.10. (The latest Ubuntu is 8.04).
    Who is to say that this problem did *not* affect other distros?
    Why Quack of course , in his desperation to be right for once, makes a
    blanket statement about "COLA & 64 bit Linux".

    Well on my machines it *does "all just work", & if the jackass had a 64bit
    machine & actually *used* Linux (instead of pretending) he might find out.

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --

+ Reply to Thread