No, I believe that the UNIX Code is MUCH better written than the Windows 95/NT code, they were coded by different people, but a friend of mine claims to have his Linux/PII-350 decifering packets at an average rate of 2X his NT/PII-400 PC.. I have Dual Celeron 504's here and would like to see what it is capable of.
You forget that programmers STILL can optimize code if they want to :-)
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> John Heritage <xebec@home.com> wrote:
>
> > -- Anyone run this off of Linux ?.
>
> Sure. I have various instances running on:
> - i386-freebsd
> - alpha-linux
> - i386-linux
> - sparc-solaris
>
> I've refrained from putting it on machines that will probably take a
> week to process a single work unit.
>
> > I understand Linux is significantly faster than NT (like a factor of
> > 2-3x ?).
>
> In the context of seti@home? Why should it be?
> Typically, on a Unix box you have setiathome running in the background
> with its niceness set to the maximum (20), so it will only gobble spare
> CPU cyles no other process wants. If the machine is otherwise idle,
> that's easily 99%. The Unix version could only be faster than the NT
> one, if NT kept drawing large amounts of cycles for other purposes. I
> don't know NT, but it can't be that broken, can it?
>
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de
> 100+ SF Book Reviews: <URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/reviews/>