Launching applications

Why is Lunix so fucking slow when launching applications? Launching Mozilla, Opera, and other multiplatform applications takes 2-3 times as long as it does on Windows 2000 in the same computer.

I am talking out of my ass, but I think that with better CPUs the Windows version would outperform better the Linux version, since the bottleneck would be the HD, and the Linux version loads more stuff that isn't likely to be in memory.

What Linux really needs to address this issue is to manage apps like OS X, separate the last window from the process. Not like it's ever gonna happen though.

>>1
What distro are you using, that things like Firefox take forever to load?

I use a Debian box and WinXP (SP2) box at work.  The Deb is on a 1 GHz AMD, the XP box a 2 GHz AMD, both with 512 MB RAM.  Firefox takes five seconds to load cold on Debian, only two seconds tops to load warm.  On WinXP it takes at *least* five seconds to load every single time, cold or warm.

And, oh, yes, the XP box is as finely tuned, virus free, and spyware free as humanly possible, while the Debian box is pure stock, nothing customized.

separate the last window from the process
Do what now?

>>43
Not quit the application when you close its window but only when you tell it to quit. Only OS X does things that way.

I'm >>1, and here's my data. I've been running these a few times and averaging the results.

Hardware: Athlon 64 3500+ Venice, 1 GB RAM, SATA HD
OS: Windows 2000, SuSE 9.2 Professional with KDE
Application: Furfox 1.5

1. First startup time
Windows: 5.9 seconds
Linux: 10.8 seconds (83% slower)

2. Second startup time *
Windows: 0.7 seconds
Linux: 6.7 seconds (857% slower)

3. Next startups time
Windows: 0.7 seconds
Linux: 1.6 seconds (129% slower)

4. Launching a new window (by clicking on the icon) after the browser is open
Windows: 0.2 seconds
Linux: 0.75 seconds (275% slower)


This is what I'm saying. It's notably slower when creating windows, and always slower loading. Surprisingly, the system cache leaves much to be desired too; for some reason the second time around seems as if it weren't fully cached.

10 fucking seconds? How are you managing that? My first Failfox session of the day takes awhile to start, but not that long!

>>46
CFLAGS JUST KICKED IN YO.
No, seriously, what's your distro >>45 ? There is something horribly wrong with this performance on both OS.

>>47 I'm not >>45 but I can answer your question on his behalf:
SuSE 9.2 Professional with KDE

>>46
I didn't think it was THAT long too, but time your startup, time runs faster when you're not looking at the watch :)