Keeping all the RAM allocated for all the available processes is a clever design decision which totally archive the dedication nature of the servers.

I think you should condense the few points readers pointed out in the article, that would make it a lot better and in-depth.

Thanks for wonderful read.

1) When the server fails to respond, that means it crashed. It does not matter if the issue is hardware or software, when it does not respond, we call this a crash. In our case the server failed to respond at all, which means it crashed. You were not there when the server crashed, as such it seems rather moot (and misguided) to suggest otherwise.

2) The purpose of the post was to elicit discussion. It was an exploration to try and figure out why Linux appeared to operate faster than Windows? After all, I am not a Linux guru or professional, by any stretch of the imagination. As such, personal attacks and bad language was unprofessional and certainly not appropriate in a public environment.

The reason for this, I believe, isn’t so much the memory or other stuff. It has to do with the so-called digital “rights” management (DRM), which I prefer to call digital restrictions management.

Vista spends an incredible amount of time and resources checking to make sure you aren’t making an illegal copy of anything, using your own computer to police you to protect big business. Your games don’t matter as much as that, so you get shorted.

The benchmark shows how much effort is given to DRM. Microsoft probably thinks it’s doing you a favor by leaving you 75% of the computer for your own use.

I also thought you should touch on the better file system and partitioning in use in all modern Linux distributions.

Also to the nerd that posted why is DOS faster — it’s not!~

Great article BTW!