Very Computer

by **Eric Rupprec** » Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:00:00

On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 12:31:24 -0400, Jeffrey Fulmer

>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:40:39 -0600, "J. S. Jensen"

>> >The speed difference is probably because WinX actually has drivers optimized
>> >FROM THE MANUFACTURER for the IDE drives.

>> I haven't seen these drivers. Windows 95 and NT use a generic
>> Microsoft driver for all IDE drives. There are no drivers for the
>> drives themselves, actually, but for the controller.

>Yeah, you have to be REAL careful when you purchase hardware for linux. Windows
>specific hardware BIOS can really cause a problem for non-Windows users.
>Plug-N-Play being the most notorious culprit of linux hardware related problems.

That's odd......I find linux RUNS ide DRIVES AS FAST if not faster
than the mentioned MS product....I use NT a lot and it seems better
than 95 in general using FAT16.....I run multiple smaller partitions
to keep cluster sizes down....The FS you use IS THE MAJOR factor
in determining drive access speeds....Study the numerous writeups
in books about Linux native ext2...NT's NTFS, FAT16 , W9x's FAT32's
and OS2's HPFS....to name a few..Each file system has its pro's and
cons depending on the drive size, partition setup, # of drives, and
r/w accessing. LINUX handles most hardware much better than W95
and does just as good as NT with drives, videos, and NIC's...Cheers

by **Mark Hah** » Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:>>> >The speed difference is probably because WinX actually has drivers optimized
>>> >FROM THE MANUFACTURER for the IDE drives.

this is gibberish. IDE (the ATA family, actually) is a standard, which Linux
takes good advantage of.

Quote:>>> Microsoft driver for all IDE drives. There are no drivers for the
>>> drives themselves, actually, but for the controller.

certainly, and Linux does an excellent job of them. for instance, you'll
see very good performace and stability from any Intel chipset, and
the VIA MVP3. there have been some bad clone chipsets, and Linux
attempts to work around their problems.

Quote:> to keep cluster sizes down....The FS you use IS THE MAJOR factor
> in determining drive access speeds....Study the numerous writeups

this is pretty nonsensical, too. certainly, an inefficient FS
like FAT will cripple performance. but an efficient FS like EXT2
lets you see nearly the full performance of the drive. as in
EXT2 filesystems with UDMA sustaining 14 MB/s...

by **Bob Glove** » Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Have you tried hdparm -c ?
For Pete's sake be careful though!

>On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 12:31:24 -0400, Jeffrey Fulmer

>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:40:39 -0600, "J. S. Jensen"

>>> >The speed difference is probably because WinX actually has drivers
optimized
>>> >FROM THE MANUFACTURER for the IDE drives.

>>> I haven't seen these drivers. Windows 95 and NT use a generic
>>> Microsoft driver for all IDE drives. There are no drivers for the
>>> drives themselves, actually, but for the controller.

>>Yeah, you have to be REAL careful when you purchase hardware for linux.
Windows
>>specific hardware BIOS can really cause a problem for non-Windows users.
>>Plug-N-Play being the most notorious culprit of linux hardware related
problems.

>That's odd......I find linux RUNS ide DRIVES AS FAST if not faster
>than the mentioned MS product....I use NT a lot and it seems better
>than 95 in general using FAT16.....I run multiple smaller partitions
>to keep cluster sizes down....The FS you use IS THE MAJOR factor
>in determining drive access speeds....Study the numerous writeups
>in books about Linux native ext2...NT's NTFS, FAT16 , W9x's FAT32's
>and OS2's HPFS....to name a few..Each file system has its pro's and
>cons depending on the drive size, partition setup, # of drives, and
>r/w accessing. LINUX handles most hardware much better than W95
>and does just as good as NT with drives, videos, and NIC's...Cheers

by **Gary Momariso** » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> Have you tried hdparm -c ?
> For Pete's sake be careful though!

So how does Pete be careful? What does he do?
Install a test Linux on a spare partition and
then do it?

It sounds interesting, but sounds like something nobody has
really tested. I've never heard of it until now.

Very Computer

IDE drives are slower under Linux comparing to Win95?

IDE drives are slower under Linux comparing to Win95?

IDE drives are slower under Linux comparing to Win95?

IDE drives are slower under Linux comparing to Win95?

IDE drives are slower under Linux comparing to Win95?