No, no amphetamines :)
Windows – meant to be bloated code. Linux – meant to be sleek, shiny not_a_byte_wasted code. But is that true ?
On a given system, is Linux faster – as in more efficient with resources – than Windows ?
Example: I have email open, I have a torrent open, I have an graphics program open. I then click to open Firefox. This takes time. I use XP, so if I had Linux, would things be quicker ?
If I have a lot of apps open, would Linux manage things better so that switching between open apps is smoother and faster ?
If the answer is that it depends on the efficiency of the program code, then where does the need for Linux come in given that a program could be written better when it runs on the Windows variant rather than the Linux ?
We don’t all have the cash to get a gig of RAM, so that leaves machines coping with less. Windows has the pagefile, which I’m led to believe is crap unless you’ve got more than one drive – but the Linux must manage things the same way surely ? (Bit pointless to say “Yay, my OS is FREE !! – but I had to spend £100 on more memory to get it to work as well as XP did..”)
As you can gather, I’m looking at it again but I’m really questioning WHY I would switch – what’s in it for ME ?