Is Linux really faster than MS Windows ?

[Skunk Worx]

Parameshwara Bhat wrote:
> 
> Any comments ? Or am I missing something ?
> 

i've been working on a windows XP box, trying to figure out why it 
grinds the hard drive all day, on every mouse movement, while linux 
plugged into the same machine (same model model/size hard drive swapped 
in) does not.

i've come to the conclusion that, although both 6 gb. drives are fairly 
full, the win XP box, as it applies patches and updates and software, 
somehow puts them further out on the drive platters while linux somehow 
tends to overwrite things when it patches and updates, or otherwise 
manages to localize things...or has a better caching system by default.

the poor XP machine (with the XP drive plugged it) just starts dying 
after getting all the SPs, etc installed...grinding on the hard drive on 
any action...the linux HD just gets accessed mostly on boot up and it's 
done...with a big fat fedora core install and all yum updates.

they are both 6 gb. drives, pretty small, not recommended....i'm 
guessing XP has to swing the spindle all over the drive face a lot while 
linux does not?

this is just a theory about a special scenario where XP appears to be an 
extremely poor solution compared to linux.

--
sw

PS: a personal aside...i am no longer a linux advocate...my opinion is, 
if you have to ask, you're a windows person anyway, no use discussing 
it. the merits of each solution and all opinions either way are fully 
documented on the web...to me the choice is obvious, for a huge number 
of reasons, but that's just me.