Re: Linux vs WinXP performance
From: mitch (mitchu_at_houston.rr.com)
Date: 10/07/03
- Next message: Bryan Oakley: "tk X11 [font actual] bug?"
- Previous message: Cameron Laird: "Re: Advantages/Pitfalls of using Ousterhout's 1994 book"
- In reply to: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:05:11 GMT
(I don't think you didn't got to read the entire thread, ... this case in point is
regarding a Pascal Source code, compiled using FPC into a binary for WinXP. The
performance under WinXP is 2 to 4 times slower in Windows. And I have some Fortran95
Source code , when comiled into a binary...
( thats old ( ok I mean really old) unix-ese for an executable ) shows about the same
performance hit under any Win32 OS, when compared to Linux.
The point was regarding the possible advantages of recoding the logic from the Pascal
source into some MS flavor of "C" , which could then be compiled with a current Microsoft
comiler, hopefully taking advantage of any new inovations in the current issue of the
WinXP or the NTFS files system.
...M'
lvirden@yahoo.com wrote:
> According to mitch <mitchu@houston.rr.com>:
> : (Should I
> :recode the binary in "C" ? ...Oh God , please say no )
>
> C programs get compiled to binary - and in fact, in general, one wouldn't
> have a 'binary' to run unless it was written in C or some other compiled
> or semi-compiled language (C++, Java, etc.)
>
> So recoding isn't going to help.
>
- Next message: Bryan Oakley: "tk X11 [font actual] bug?"
- Previous message: Cameron Laird: "Re: Advantages/Pitfalls of using Ousterhout's 1994 book"
- In reply to: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|