Hello Alam, would you please give the uniti of your test, what means 4710
minutes secondes, retard time, bps??? excuseme but I dont know your
"Caffeine Mark 3.0"
Thanks. Bernardo
>> Hi people
>>
>> I tried the Java benchmark "Caffeine Mark 3.0" on both a Windows'98
>> machine and a Linux machine
4:18
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Windows'98 / Linux disparity.
>
>
> Hi people
>
> I tried the Java benchmark "Caffeine Mark 3.0" on both a Windows'98
> machine and a Linux machine running the JDK 1.1.7 from SUN. The
> configuration for the Linux
First off, you have to be running a JIT compiler of some sort -- the
standard release of JDK 1.1.7 for Linux does not include a JIT.
There are several available (such as ShuJIT and TYA).
Amlan Saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi people
>
> I tried the Java benchmark "Caffeine Mark 3.0" on b
Amlan Saha wrote:
>
> Hi people
>
> I tried the Java benchmark "Caffeine Mark 3.0" on both a Windows'98
> machine and a Linux machine running the JDK 1.1.7 from SUN. The
> configuration for the Linux machine was RedHat 6.0 distribution,
> 2.2.6 kernel and running JDK 1.1.7. Both the machines a
> I am at a loss to understand as to why Linux fared so BADLY in
> comparison to Windows and also why graphics under Linux is so much
> better than under Windows.
First off, I'd hazard a guess that the Windows benchmark was run with a
JIT, and the Linux benchmark wasn't. Second, Windows JVM is
Hi people
I tried the Java benchmark "Caffeine Mark 3.0" on both a Windows'98
machine and a Linux machine running the JDK 1.1.7 from SUN. The
configuration for the Linux machine was RedHat 6.0 distribution,
2.2.6 kernel and running JDK 1.1.7. Both the machines are Pentium
II-300.
The results a
