<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
NO. All locations in my corp. for example do not have 24 hr power.
Also, on laptops, your argument falls flat. --servers aside, pepole
reboot the machines and if they are not the latest and greatest, it is
a time consuming process... every one can not afford to replace all the
hardware every 3 years. <br>
<br>
Angela Kahealani wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F75290E.669CF77D@kahealani.com">
<pre wrap="">
Ingo Molnar wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Stephan Schutter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Timings are average of 5 launches. [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I suppose if you're evaluating a system like WinDOwS or MacOS<X,
then boot time and launch time ARE the most signifigant times to evaluate.
On a UNIX based system (CRAM the trademark, it's a generic term)
you boot once, launch once, and just use it day after day after day
after day...
so you need to compare the UNIX screensaver unlock time with MacWinDOwS
Boot+Launch time.
The signifigant times are USING the applications, not booting and
launching. Compare file open, file save, file scrolling, and then you'd
have something.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>