Performance shock

[Tom Adelstein]

Kolya,

I've attempted to explain this before, but it seems to continue to
come up in this mailing list.

When I consulted Gateway in 1998-99, I saw them get the raw version of
Windows 98 and then hack it up so it would work reasonably well with
their machines. It required lots of adjustments and each of those
adjustments became part of a manual the engineers used over and over.

We've attempted to created documentation to accomplish the same thing
and it's recorded at Linuxjournal.com under my name as the author in
the Linux in Government series.

I just put a fresh install on a $149 new computer from Fry's. It's a
complete system with an AMD Sempron 2200 and 128 MB of RAM, etc.

I went back and make the same adjustments and it performs about three
times as fast including starting applications as it did when I
installed Ubuntu on the first try.

If Ubuntu came on new hardware and was engineered by HP, Dell, IBM,
Gateway, Compaq, Toshiba, Sharp, etc. it would perform better than the
offerings from Monopoly Systems of Redmond, WA.

It's just a matter of semantics, really.

On 7/3/05, kolya <ulist at gs1.ubuntuforums.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm having the exact opposite experience.  I guess it comes down to
> where your priorities are.  I really don't care if the program loads a
> second slower.  For me it is all about how the program runs.  Comparing
> game play of enemy territory is like night and day.  I can run my
> computer at higher AA and AF in Linux than I can in windows and still
> maintain the same frame rate.
> 
> 
> --
> kolya
> 
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>