Is Linux really faster than MS Windows ?

[Steve Fink]

On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 16:20 -0800, Skunk Worx wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 

This is more than likely a swapping issue.  Check both your OS's and see
which one swaps the most.

XP will tend to boot up swapping unless you have a boatload of RAM.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve