On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:23:15PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Alex R�nne Petersen" <xtzgzo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:jjg7dq$24q$1...@digitalmars.com... > > On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >> > >> Then you must be running a very different Linux from the one I use. > >> In my experience, it's Windows that's an order of magnitude less > >> responsive due to constant HD thrashing (esp. on bootup, and then > >> periodically thereafter) and too much eye-candy. > > > > This. On the other hand, OS X has all the eye candy and is still > > extremely responsive. ;) > > > > That's because they cram [their] hardware upgrades down your throat > every couple years. [...]
Yikes. That would *not* sit well with me. Before my last upgrade, my PC was at least 10 years old. (And the upgrade before that was at least 5 years prior.) Last year I finally replaced my 10 y.o. PC with a brand new AMD hexacore system. The plan being to not upgrade for at least the next 10 years, preferably more. :-) (Maybe by then, Intel's currently-experimental 80-core system would be out in the consumer market, and I'll be a really happy geek sitting in the corner watching 1000 instances of povray cranking out images at lightning speed like there's no tomorrow.) T -- "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net)