Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7

Posted at 12:50pm on Tuesday February 3rd 2009

In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users, but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real-world tests? We put Ubuntu 8.10, Windows Vista and Windows 7 through their paces in both 32-bit and 64-bit tests to see just how well Ubuntu faces the new contender. And, just for luck, we threw in a few tests using Jaunty Jackalope with ext4.

When Windows users say that Windows 7 is easier to install than ever, what do they really mean? When they say it's faster, is it just in their heads, or is Microsoft really making big strides forward? And, perhaps most importantly, when Linux benchmarkers show us how screamingly fast ext4 is compared to ext3, how well do those figures actually transfer to end users?

These are the questions we wanted to answer, so we asked Dell to provide us with a high-spec machine to give all the operating systems room to perform to their max. Our test machine packed an Intel Core i7 920, which in layman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache. It also had 6GB of RAM, plus two 500GB of hard drives with 16MB of cache.

The tests we wanted to perform for each operating system were:

How long does each operating system take to install?
How much disk space was used in the standard install?
How long does boot up and shutdown take?
How long does it take to copy files from USB to HD, and from HD to HD?
How fast can it execute the Richards benchmark?

We also, just for the heck of it, kept track of how many mouse clicks it took to install each OS.

Before we jump into the results, there are a few things we should make clear:

To ensure absolute fairness, install time was measured from the moment the computer was turned on until we reached a working desktop.
The same computer hardware was used for all tests, and all operating systems were installed fresh for this article.
We used the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, simply because Windows 7 was provided only in this flavour.
We used the Windows Vista SP1 disk to accurately reflect what users are likely to experience todaay.
Our Windows 7 version is the open beta that Microsoft issued recently. It is probable Windows 7 will be at least this fast in the final build, if not faster.
For Ubuntu 9.04 we used the daily build from January 22nd.
All operating systems were installed using standard options; nothing was changed.
After checking how much space was used during the initial install, each operating system was updated with all available patches before any other tests were performed.
Our journalistic friends have informed us that Windows Vista (and, presumably, Windows 7 too) has technology to increase the speed of the system over time as it learns to cache programs intelligently. It also allows users to use flash drives to act as temporary storage to boost speed further. None of our tests are likely to show this technology in action, so please take that into account when reading the results.
The filesystem, boot, shutdown and Richards benchmarks were performed three times each then averaged.

And, of course, there's the most important proviso of all: it is very, very likely that a few tweaks to any of these operating systems could have made a big difference to these results, but we're not too interested in that - these results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS, like most users do.

Install time

Amount of time taken to install, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better.

At first glance, you might think that Ubuntu clearly installs far faster than either version of Windows, and while that's true there is one important mitigation: both Windows Vista and Windows 7 run system benchmarks part-way through the installation to determine the computer's capabilities.

A bit of a flippant one - just how many mouse clicks does it take to install an OS with the default options?

Surprisingly, Ubuntu 8.10 gets it done with half the clicks of Windows 7. NB: hopefully it's clear this doesn't make Ubuntu 8.04 twice as easy to install. Measured in, er, mouse clicks; fewer is better.

Disk space used immediately after a fresh install. Measured in gigabytes; less is better.

While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard. NB: Vista failed to detect the network card during install, leaving us without an internet connection until a driver was downloaded on another computer.

Bootup and shutdown

Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as soon as the desktop was reached. The Dell box does take about 20 seconds to get past POST, but to avoid questions about when to start the timer we just started it as soon as the power button was pressed.

Amount of time taken to boot, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better.

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 is the only one to beat the one-minute mark, but that advantage is quickly lost in the switch to 64-bit. Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release.

Amount of time taken to shutdown, from button being clicked to machine powering off. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Windows lags a little behind the Linuxes, with 64-bit again proving a sticking point - this time for Windows Vista.

IO testing

To test filesystem performance, we ran four tests: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files from HD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD tests copied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk. For reference, the large file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in 127 folders, making 603MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full write had taken place.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Let us take this opportunity to remind readers that Windows 7 is still at least nine months from release.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally suffered compared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures show a drastic performance difference between the two.

Notes: Vista and Windows 7 really seemed to struggle with copying lots of small files, but clearly it's something more than a dodgy driver because some of the large-file speeds are incredible in Windows 7.

Both Vista and Windows 7 seemed to introduce random delays when deleting files. For example, about one in three times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do nothing for 25-30 seconds before suddenly springing into action and deleting the files. However, this wasn't part of our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmark

Notes: This was done using the cross-platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8.10 uses Python 2.5.2, Ubuntu 9.04 uses Python 2.5.4, and we used Python 2.5.4 on the Windows tests. Even though the 64-bit results for Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed with the Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to 20ms on Linux.

Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richards benchmark. Measured in milliseconds; less is better.

It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it's not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results.

Switching to ext4

All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext3, so what happens when we switch to ext4? Well, not a lot:

Boot, shutdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9.04/x86-64 using ext3 (blue) and ext4 (red). Measured in seconds; less is better.

Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext4 dropped by 8 seconds, which is a fair improvement. We can probably discount the the USB to HD tests simply out of error margin, which leaves the HD to HD tests, and there we find a very healthy boost: 3.7 seconds were shaved off the small files test, making ext4 about 25% faster. Our tests also showed an improvement in the large file test, but it's not as marked.

Conclusions

Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext4 now stable we expect it to be adopted into distros fairly quickly. Sadly it looks like Ubuntu 9.04 won't be among the first distros to make the switch, so users looking to get the best performance from their Linux boxes will either have to fiddle with the default options, have patience, or jump ship to Fedora - which will be switching to ext4 in the next release..

You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter

Your comments

Avwar

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 11, 2009 @ 5:37am

Obviously, there are a few applications that Linux community needs to work on. Microsoft spends a lot of money and effort to prevent Linux from competing where ever they have the leverage. Also some Linux hackers, for some reason, don't think it's important to fill in the blanks for us non-geeks. I use Linux and mostly do without whatever is not available thereupon. It's a much more peaceful world w/o windoze, even though I occasionally have to use command line, it's surprisingly easy once you catch on to it. I have never been able to get any help with Linux and picked up everything on my own. That has gotten much easier over the last 8 years. There's not much difference between Linux and XP on any of my boxes in booting, but updating and clicking off warning boxes means I can't use windows XP for several minutes and up to 35-40 minutes. I only use XP when I need DVD Shrink or Decrypter.

and win XP??? ?? in port ant

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 11, 2009 @ 9:39am

and win XP??? ?? in port ant formy

and win XP??? ?? in port ant

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 11, 2009 @ 9:39am

and win XP??? ?? in port ant formy

LOL!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 11, 2009 @ 11:11am

"windows XP for several minutes and up to 35-40 minutes."

Well thank god I never have that problem with XP, that's probably because I'm smart or something...
You know you can disable the automatic updates, and have them run in the background, right?
Guess not...

Usually when people come with these ridiculous claims about Windows, it's because of their stupidity.

Like the classic "Thanks to windows, my computer is infected with spyware, so I can't use it!!!"

Quit downloading porn, genius, and the problem will solve itself!

MY NETBOOK WITH VANILLA

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 11, 2009 @ 11:01pm

MY NETBOOK WITH VANILLA UBUNTU TAKES LESS THAN 30 SECONDS TO BOOT! HOW CAN A FULL DESKTOP TAKE 70 SECONDS!?! THERE MUST BE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH YOUR INSTALLATION!!!

brrr

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 12, 2009 @ 3:32pm

who cares about fuckin mouse clicks during installation,thats a retard benchmark

Benchmarks are foolish

Charles (not verified) - February 12, 2009 @ 5:40pm

Here is where we are today and since 2000. Is Linux this or Is Linux that or can Linux win this blah blah blah.

I'm sick of it.

We all know that windows sucks, and why it sucks.

If you want windows to win then keep doing these meaningless (to the regular end user) benchmarks and geek out over acronyms and abbreviations which further alienate regular people and condemn Linux to dusty server rooms and geek hideouts in mommys basement with nerds compiling their kernels.

If you want people to adopt Linux great. Change the way you talk about it.

Here are some headlines for Hope and Change:

When will Microsoft Windows be free of viruses?
When will Microsoft Office finally be free?
Why do we have to waste time clicking pop-ups in Microsoft Windows?
Why is Microsoft Windows so complicated compared to all the other Operating Systems?
When will your Windows be as safe as Linux?
Why does Microsoft Windows cost so much for so little?

See the difference?
End users cant tell the difference between AOL and the Internet. Your geek review just turn them off. They go straight into "dummy mode" (BOFH lingo there).

Show them they are safer, save more money and can still get their AOL email and chat and you have a winner.

Comments / Corrections

Brandon (not verified) - February 12, 2009 @ 8:19pm

How was the disk space calculation achieved? Unfortunately just using the Explorer to measure folder sizes can be misleading, as Windows makes extensive use of symlinks which can throw off the used space calculation. The Disk Management tools will provide a more accurate view.

However it is important, as others have noted, to remember that the Page File (equivalent of Linux swap partition) defaults to a rather large size, but will shrink if disk space becomes limited. Further, Windows creates a hibernation file the size of your RAM which can be disabled via the Disk Clean-up wizard (or by OEMs installing onto small netbook drives, etc).

Then there's this quote:
"Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, "

Windows performs no "DRM checks" when copying files. Indeed, Windows has no DRM code at all that runs unless you choose to playback DRM'd media.

Myths about Windows' "DRM overhead" have long been dispelled, and your propogation of those myths is not appreciated by anybody. You should update the article to remove that misleading statement.

Bullshit Benchmark

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 12, 2009 @ 10:14pm

This is the worst benchmark:

1. it is against Windows EULA to benchmark this version of Windows 7

2. You are benchmarking a BETA!!!!!!!! version of windows with a stable version of UBUNTU...nice

3. Your bias in your comments negates all objectivity

Gave Linux a shot, won't go back

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 13, 2009 @ 7:05am

Last year I gave Linux a chance for the third time in my life. This time I went with Ubuntu. The previous times I tried Mandrake but it was years ago. Things were so much easier to install in Ubuntu. The package system in Ubuntu is great. It is the main reason I will never go back. In Windows you're constantly getting update notifications that new software is available. You have to visit a website, download, run the installer. It is very funny to me that back when I was a devoted Windows user, I would be on these same kinds of forums bashing the crap out of Linux because things are insanely difficult to install. Ironic.

I'm not one of those people that say everyone should be using Linux (Ubuntu). But I am one of those people that say more and more people should try Linux. The ease of use barrier is dropping fast with Linux, and I'm sure it has something to do Debian/Ubuntu "standardizing" the mainstream distribution.

I hate the fact that the software available in Linux for free and is easier to install is always instantly discounted by commercially available counterparts. It is always:
1) Adobe Photoshop
2) Office
3) Games
So first off, I'm guessing 90% of the PS install base is pirated copy. Piracy happens when software is very good and the price doesn't drop to reflect demand. What I mean is that Photoshop is so popular they could have charged $30 for each copy since version 4 and made billions more to date because of more purchases versus pirating.

MS Office is very good, especially the new one. I prefer OpenOffice at home because I will not pay for Office, it isn't worth the price. I don't think anyone given OpenOffice and actually try it for 1 day would shell out the money for MS Office. The reason so many people have legit copies of Office is that it wasn't their money that was spent to procure the copy. In nearly all cases Office is demanded by the employee.

It isn't profitable for a game developer to put money toward a < 1% marketshare OS. More and more games are going to Consoles anyway. The last great hold up from all games going to Consoles is the MMO. I don't think this will stay true for long. There is no technical reason why the next console can't come with a mouse / keyboard as standard input devices that come with the system.

Lastly with respect to the software issue, there is no reason why PS, Office and more games can't be released to Linux. It is really about demand. If more people demanded it, then we would have all this in Linux.

Many commentors Even though Windows 7 is in Beta I think it is ready for comparison. A) We're talking about 9 months before release. In software development that does not allow for groundbreaking changes. B) The build does not have debugging enabled. C) Most of the technology of 7 is the same as Vista.

And to the spell-check-firefox commentor, I think this comment box is causing the problem, it doesn't allow arrow keys and the spell check feature doesn't appear to work on this site for some reason. Perhaps there is some crazy javascript causing this problem.

Disabled write caching

David Balažic (not verified) - February 13, 2009 @ 3:43pm

"Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full write had taken place."
IOW: It has nothing to do with real workd ;)

(ok, I don't know how much influence it would have on the result, but it is still nonrealistic; did you also turn off the CPU caches in CPU benchmarks ?)

Good comparison. However,

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 13, 2009 @ 7:42pm

Good comparison. However, that said, the disk space section is somewhat misleading, since Vista has the pagefile and hibernation file on the disk by default.

Not that Vista is exactly space miserly, but the real install size is closer to 4GiB rather than 8GiB. Note that you also can't use Windows Explorer to see the size of the Windows directory, since it counts hardlinks multiple times in the space count.

Linux of course!

Anonymous Raccoon (not verified) - February 13, 2009 @ 10:52pm

Well,
i really hate when others post their hate about someones work. Maybe this can be contradictory and kinda like communistic if you consider posting kind of a work.
Who ever wrote this benchmark used his free time to produce it! So dont spit on someones work please. If you cant appreciate it make a better one! :P

I agree with dozens of posts that say that Linux wins! So I'll say the same. :)
Windows is out of competition with Linux and it should be compared just to see why!
There was an awesome post that windows should be tested with antivieus installed! I totally agree with it!
As for Ubuntu, i know it a long time, since the version 4... And i tried other distros also for that period of time till now...Did some work on it to make it more adoptive...
Dont be so harsh about Ubuntu cause it is a try to make Linux accessible for noobs! And yes i consider my self a big noob! It has greater community than any other distros and it arrives at your doorstep by mail. It is a great way to make Bill Gates day worse! Ha ha! :P
And as Jeremy said... most people are noobs right!
So this is an opportunity to free themselves from the chains of Microsoft!
The freedom is important people! It should be the first thing in your life!
An i think that we should all together help it to become more stable and available, it can be Ubuntu but id doesnt need to! If someone could give absolutely free something that can be a full replacement for windows to a common user why not use that chance and help them out!
This benchmark is the right example that could show a common user that he could try Ubuntu!
So all of you if you are so smart why dont you help the community!?

"It's not the OS that

inportb (not verified) - February 14, 2009 @ 1:01am

"It's not the OS that matters. It's the applications. The GIMP still sucks. Photoimpact 5 (from 1999) is still better than GIMP UI wise. Make an opensource version of <b>PHOTOSHOP</b>, with a Photoshop like GUI, and decent performance."

So use Photoshop. In my experience, CS2/3/4 work faster on Wine than it does on Windows.

"2. You are benchmarking a

inportb (not verified) - February 14, 2009 @ 1:02am

"2. You are benchmarking a BETA!!!!!!!! version of windows with a stable version of UBUNTU...nice"

Right... and Ubuntu 9.04 is still Alpha. I have no idea what you're talking about there.

"Personally I feel sorry for

inportb (not verified) - February 14, 2009 @ 1:06am

"Personally I feel sorry for them... Notice how they always emphasize that it's 'FREE!' Imagine being so poor, or such a scrooge, that 50$ extra on a computersystem is a big ****ing deal. I assume it's the same lot, who goes apeshit everytime they see a supermarket-coupon that'll save them 30 cents, or who consider it an epic win, when they save 20 bucks by buying the kids carseat used. Sad really..."

What's really sad is that you don't understand the true meaning of "free." Perhaps living in chains with Microsoft does really distort your perception of freedom. No matter how much it costs, "free" in the opensource world means liberty.

bogus

Anonymous Beastie (not verified) - February 14, 2009 @ 1:16am

Some of these measures are totally meaningless. Some of the statements made in the article (e. g., the BS about "DRM checks") as well as in the comments (too many to list) are downright erroneous and some smack of FUD; I think Linux advocates are more inclined to engage in deceit and FUD than Microsoft is.

I also think there are too many variables to weigh that such "benchmarks," on only one system configuration, leave a skewed picture. As others have pointed out, system layout is very different between Linux and Windows. By default, Windows sets up enough to page for hibernation. If you were to set up a similar test on laptops and configured whatever Linux distro to hibernate, the "space" consumed would be closer to what Windows uses. And that begs the question of the above "benchmark" of disk space consumption -- did you count Linux swap (partition or file?) or did you ignore that and only account for how Windows sets it up?

Another issue worthy of discussion is how many drivers one would really need to install in Windows versus Ubuntu or whatever distro. The last time I installed Ubuntu, I had to find a wired connection to get ndiswrapper so I could load my driver. Which reminds me: it would also be interesting to see benchmarks of performance between native Linux drivers against Windows drivers. And maybe even of those Windows drivers in their Linux kludges like ndiswrapper. I had one Ralink card with a native Linux driver, the rest required ndiswrapper. The performance of all three cards, across the board, was much better and I had all features in Windows. Linux wifi performance sucked.

As far as applications go, I don't expect or want someone else to make those decisions for me. Not Microsoft, not Canonical, not Sun. I want to install an operating system and choose my own apps to suit my own needs -- with Ubuntu's default install, there's no choice because it's been made for the user: you get a ton of crap that seems to show up every couple weeks in Ubuntu's incessant security updates. If updating is the rat's azz for Windows users, what is it for Ubuntu users?

The same people ranting against Microsoft not including Office along with Windows are the same ninnies who scream against the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. Bundling is "bad" in Windows but "good" in Linux? Can't please everyone, eh. Freaking clueless hypocrites.

nit picking and whining

Anonymous Ubuntu Users (not verified) - February 16, 2009 @ 2:14am

Personally, I found this blog quite informative. I liked the metrics the author chose to track. All of the critics on this blog who are complaining that he didn't test this and that test are techies who have missed the point. Using all of the defaults IS the way a typical user installs a system. While some of us may tweak and tune to improve our performance and security, most people use their system just as it's installed. Just because the author didn't run all of --your-- favorite benchmarks and tests doesn't mean these tests are not relevant to other users. Instead of just criticizing someone else's work why don't --you-- run your favorite bench marks and then add some useful information yourselves. Stop your whining and do something productive.

Why I left Windows

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 16, 2009 @ 3:10am

It is interesting that this is about fresh installs, because it is recommended by many to fresh install windows every few months, why? Because it gets slower and slower because the registry continues to get wacked due to broken strings of info. Well install a registry cleaner, more hard drive space is used, and then there is the time to clean the registry, then every month or so, download the next generation registry cleaner.
Now, an adware finds its way onto the system, download adware software, find out the particular adware that was downloaded is a particularly devious one and the recommendation? Fresh install windows, reinstall the registry cleaner and the adware cleaner.
So, read about Ubuntu, try it on windows for a week, like it, install it permanantly 3 months ago. Also install it on the kids computer which they have chat programs etc, and takes 15 minutes to boot. They have been running Ubuntu for 2 1/2 months and still loads in about a minute.
A friends computer goes caput, he tries to reload his windows, still will not boot, takes it to geeky people, they can't get it to work, recommend trashing and getting a new computer. I recommend ubuntu as I have read that it can be used to find out problems on windows computers that are having problems, he puts the cd in, it boots and he loads ubuntu and will not go back to windows.

This is my experience.

software compatibility

srynznfyra (not verified) - February 16, 2009 @ 1:54pm

To all people complaining that Linux doesn't have the productivity tools that they need (such as Adobe Creative Suite), the only way that Linux is gonna get more of those sorts of apps is by more people using Linux. Linux is a community driven OS, and you can't just complain to the OEM/maker of Linux that there isn't enough software, because there is none. Practically all the good software for Linux was created by someone like you. I say like you, but they weren't actually because when they found software that Linux lacked, as opposed to you they could be bothered to start a project that did what they wanted it to do. Sure, you can request for new programs, but the best way of getting new programs ported/created for Linux, is to get everyone using it. And there is such as thing as dual booting.

ubuntu & windows 7

anonymous boy (not verified) - February 16, 2009 @ 2:27pm

I love ubuntu and windows 7.
It works really good. But you can dump windows Vista it sucks

Boot time should include starting 1 or 2 useful applications.

carlleigh (not verified) - February 16, 2009 @ 4:59pm

My Wife has Windows XP on her computer and it takes 5 min. before you can do anything useful on it. Surf the Web. Open an Office document. OpenSuse on the same computer takes 2 min. When I do benchmarks I include time from power on to Surfing the Web. Power on to changing the contents of a text document then saved and closed.

I'm very happy that you counted the clicks to install. Some of the people I've talked to while doing support get terribly upset when things are not real easy or efficient. Like some of your snarling commenting readers seem to be. 15 clicks when there could have been 10 and they are ready to beat their spouses. Just like your snarling.......

very good test, but it has

steve (not verified) - February 19, 2009 @ 8:29am

very good test, but it has been mentioned before, when you install a new distro you want all of your hardware to work aswell ie printers, modem and so on, with ubuntu i dont need to install any drivers at all even for new machines whereas with windows i was loading drivers for about half an hour just to get online, windows took 20 -25 min to get online after the initial install, ubuntu had me online in less that 1 min after a total clean disk install, i try new distros all the time linux aswell as windows and i always go back to ubuntu, i'll stick with ubuntu and have everything working straight away than fork out ££££££££££££ on a o/s that also needs a lot more drivers adding to it just to type a comment to a blog or to print a letter, which ubuntu does for the cost of a blank cd. and when you go online with winows please please get a very good virus scanner and firewall installed you will really need them

Windows & ubuntu

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 19, 2009 @ 3:33pm

a comparision with windows & ubuntu

ubuntu does not actualy copy

windows usr (not verified) - February 19, 2009 @ 11:45pm

ubuntu does not actualy copy untill u safley remove disk to prove try puting a file on a fat 32 drive and putin vista pc with out safely eject and do it agian but safly eject it takes long and the files are now copied so then put it in vista machine and you can read it

Richards benchmark is

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 22, 2009 @ 12:13pm

Richards benchmark is utterly pointless on core2 hardware, since it is indeed single-threaded.
Furthermore, how many iterations did you use? 10? Not really representative, imo.

And well, you had to make some statistics on copy time, shutdown time, etc, because there *are* deviations.

hello

Japase (not verified) - February 23, 2009 @ 3:30pm

what is Vista? o.O

Dr.

Ehm.. (not verified) - February 23, 2009 @ 11:26pm

nerds

Chuck Norris still boots

Karolynaz (not verified) - February 24, 2009 @ 3:16pm

Chuck Norris still boots faster

To all and everyone...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 25, 2009 @ 5:24pm

Few words to all those MS asskissing f*gs out there...

Someone asked what work does he do on his linux machine... and what f*cking work do you do on your windows machine... I am a programmer and web developer, we also do a lot of graphics editing here... so yea am more productive too... you know why... cuz linux apps just dont crash for every stupid little thing you do...

Want some more... ok. Linux is more secure by far than windows. More? Ok... Also my machine doesnt slow after 1 year of use and moreover I dont need to defragment my drive. I dont need antivirus, antispam and firewalls to stay protected. I dont need to restart my machine for every stupid little application I install. Linux machine doesnt slow down after starting a bunch of applications and then close them down... I dont need to have 4gb or ram just to start os, not to mention idiotic Aeor whose hardware requirements are clost to doom3.

I hear about vista/win7 being nicer and prettier. Ever heard of Compiz?! Ohh, nooo... it's only kewlest app you can find... and guess what :D linux only... You can make effect you can only dream about on windows and leave everything to GPU.

I agree on Photoshop being the missing one on linux but since Adobe entered linux foundation a while ago, we'll see what comes out of this...

And some crackhead said something about <15% of machines not using windows... HAHAHA, hellooouu... in 2008 from around 10 million notebooks sold more than 30% was with linux on it. And these numbers are estimated to be doubled in 2009 (that's from MS statement recently published). I'd like to see an idiot who buys laptop for 200-400$ and then pays the same amount for windows and office...

Once linux gains speed, more applications and games will be developed for linux.

Face it people, all these years MS didnt change a thing in win kernel. They just changed themes and added more bullsh*t to slow down your systems...

And whole bunch of people forgot about Mac :/ damn, mac has everything... Photoshop, all the nice apps and is damn stable... So quit your bs and start looking for something that doesnt cost much (or is free)... or even try ...

There are whole bunch of linux distros... and you can make them blazingly fast or do whatever you want...

For newbies there are things like ubuntu and fedora... to old school slackware , debian...

So stfu... this thread is over!

> "If I'm not mistaken

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 25, 2009 @ 9:21pm

> "If I'm not mistaken Ubuntu comes with indexing turned on by default. There is no difference between the two. I don't believe it has anything like superfetch by default as preload is an additional install but I could be wrong.

Is there a benefit to the performance monitor slowing your performance?

As for software yes Windows lacks and office suite. It also lacks a cross network messenger, Photoshop style graphics editing software, DVD/CD burner application outside of the OS baked in functionality, a text editor of equal functionality, a webcam application, a photo manager (could be wrong), a full email client (I don't think Outlook Express counts compared to Evolution)... There simply isn't a comparison on software out of the box.

I think he should go ahead and use the system and then test again. The only thing Widnows is going to do is indexing which Ubuntu is going to do as well. I don't see how this is going to affect the result by that much."

+ The indexing is not implemented in the same way, and I don't think Linuxes indexing is as broad as Windows' indexing.

IRT Software out of the box. This is an advantage with Windows. Linux distros come with a lot of redundant software. How many editors in the default install of your Ubuntu/OpenSuSE/Fedora? That's just one example. How many Web Browsers?

You are free to get all the software you need for Windows. For example: Opera has a Mail/Newsgroup/BitTorrent client integrated into their browser, as well as RSS capabilities.

Outlook Express doesn't come with Windows Vista and Windows 7. Microsoft Windows Mail comes with those. Have you ever used Windows Mail on XP? Evolution is a GroupWare application, not just an email client. Most Groupware applications have email clients built-in. Outlook express can do Newsgroups, can you do that with Evolution (say no...). You do not compare Evolution to Outlook Express, you compare it to Lotus Notes and Microsoft Outlook. Way to fail. Compare Outlook Express to KMail or Mozilla Thunderbird. The functionality of those applications is pretty close (almost the same). Outlook Express works find as a Mail Client, because it's a full Email Client. Don't worry, though; you have options on Windows as well as Linux.

You can install many Open Source (even Windows-only) editors on Windows. GNU Emacs runs on Windows. There is Notepad++, Crimson Editor, etc. Microsoft and CodeGear have free development tools (including IDEs of higher quality than KDevelop) for Windows apart from GCC. Eclipse and NetBeans are available for Windows.

There is Windows PowerShell for those who want a better scripting environment.

WebCam applications usually come with your WebCam. When was the last time you brought one from the store? You can download this software for your equipment from the manufacturer's website.

Windows Photo Management... You don't know how to go to Google and download Picasa 3? Microsoft Office (at least 2003 that I have, the Pro version) includes this type of Functionality, also (Microsoft Office Picture Manager).

More FUD from someone who doesn't seem to have used Windows Vista, and knows pretty much nothing about the Microsoft OSes other than what he reads on Anti-Windows/M$ sites and blogs. Just, stop...

Lol... Seriously?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 25, 2009 @ 9:57pm

>> Few words to all those MS asskissing f*gs out there...

Few words to all these GNU cumgurgling f*gs out there...

>>> Someone asked what work does he do on his linux machine... and what f*cking work do you do on your windows machine... I am a programmer and web developer, we also do a lot of graphics editing here... so yea am more productive too... you know why... cuz linux apps just dont crash for every stupid little thing you do...

It's 2009. Windows is stable. You can keep giving us stories from Windows 98/Me/NT4, but it just doesn't do much but show us how fcking clueless you are. Windows is stable, and my XP machines can run for days, weeks, months without being rebooted or shut down. I know, I blew out my laptop's inverter from running it 24/7 and turning off the power management so that the screen never went out. Windows XP/Vista are stable operating systems.

The applications don't crash for every little stupid thing you do, unless you're a stupid user. Ever thought maybe you were at fault? I know X.Org in OpenSuSE used to crashed every day many times a day for me. I had to wait until they released OpenSuSE 10.3 to use it again.

>>> Want some more... ok. Linux is more secure by far than windows. More? Ok... Also my machine doesnt slow after 1 year of use and moreover I dont need to defragment my drive. I dont need antivirus, antispam and firewalls to stay protected. I dont need to restart my machine for every stupid little application I install. Linux machine doesnt slow down after starting a bunch of applications and then close them down... I dont need to have 4gb or ram just to start os, not to mention idiotic Aeor whose hardware requirements are clost to doom3.

True. Windows is more secure by default, but who uses a computer in its default configuration, and only in that manner. Do you use Linux on a root account? No. Whose fault is it for people who get viruses because of bad computing habits? Theirs? Viruses and Malware become an afterthought when you are not running insecurely (i.e. with a normal user account). Virus scanning is necessary for all platforms. Your platform is leet, Viruses cannot install themselves! Gratz on passing a trojan horse on to your mother because you were to idiotic to run ClamAV and have it remove those viruses/malware.

BTW. Most Linux distros will install ClamAV by default. If they don't, they are doing their users and any users who share files with those users a huge disservice. Security isn't all about your computer. It's about the people you interact with also (email, share files, etc.). Also, there are hundreds-thousands of security exploits for Linux/Users machines Thank the C Programming language. Do you want a copy of my RHEL4/5 Errata?

>>> I hear about vista/win7 being nicer and prettier. Ever heard of Compiz?! Ohh, nooo... it's only kewlest app you can find... and guess what :D linux only... You can make effect you can only dream about on windows and leave everything to GPU.

Compiz sucks. There is more to Aero than just pretty graphics and additional hits to your system stability.

>>> I agree on Photoshop being the missing one on linux but since Adobe entered linux foundation a while ago, we'll see what comes out of this...

It's not just about Photoshop. Too many applications are missing, and many of the Open Source offerings are of low quality.

>>> And some crackhead said something about <15% of machines not using windows... HAHAHA, hellooouu... in 2008 from around 10 million notebooks sold more than 30% was with linux on it. And these numbers are estimated to be doubled in 2009 (that's from MS statement recently published). I'd like to see an idiot who buys laptop for 200-400$ and then pays the same amount for windows and office...

I wonder how many of them Pirate Windows XP later to install on it, along with Photoshop/Acrobat/etc.

>>> Once linux gains speed, more applications and games will be developed for linux.

Didn't they say this in 2001?

>>> Face it people, all these years MS didnt change a thing in win kernel. They just changed themes and added more bullsh*t to slow down your systems...

You do know that Windows NT and Windows 9x were two different kernels right? Clueless, much?

>>> And whole bunch of people forgot about Mac :/ damn, mac has everything... Photoshop, all the nice apps and is damn stable... So quit your bs and start looking for something that doesnt cost much (or is free)... or even try ...

Mac is doing well. Mac is a UNIX, not Linux. What does Mac have to do with Linux?

>>> There are whole bunch of linux distros... and you can make them blazingly fast or do whatever you want...

That's part of the problem with Linux. Unless Windows and Mac, there are a gazillion different flavors of it, which makes Linux a nightmare when it comes to technical support and porting software. LSB isn't relaly doing much about that, either. Most vendors will port their applications and games to Mac before they do so for Linux, because WIndows/Mac are predictable, while Linux isn't.

If they do port to Linux, it will most likely be to Workstation (commercial) distros like RHEL and SLED - maybe also to Fedora and OpenSuSE, but Fedora I'm not sure. Remember Kylix from Borland? There's a reason why it died. Linux users are not keen on paying for high quality software (or funding the enhancements of the software), and Linux isn't a stable-enough platform until you totally ditch support for 98% of the distros that exist. There are a lot of Linux users looking to Pirate Kylix, though. Those Linux users... Such skillful software Pirates!

>>> For newbies there are things like ubuntu and fedora... to old school slackware , debian...

Ubuntu trashes my display when I try to go into 1280x1024 resolution. Fedora boots with no X display. Have fun walking a "newbie" through that.

>>> So stfu... this thread is over!

Yes, please STFU, and RTFM.

About to install Vista on another machine, Ciao!!!

Time to install vs gigabytes for install = Windows is better.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 1, 2009 @ 1:28am

801 seconds to install 2.3GB on Ubuntu64 = 348.26 seconds per GB.

1364 seconds to install 11.9GB on Windows64 = 114.62 seconds per GB.

I agree with above - mostly irrelevant tests

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 1, 2009 @ 10:05pm

I must agree with a Penguin above (February 5, 2009 @ 9:50pm).

Really, who cares how long does it take to install an OS (unless it's days, which it's clearly not)? Do you do that very often? I don't - usually I just buy a PC with the OS already installed and never re-install it after. Why would I???

I also don't care how long it takes to shutdown - I leave my desk right after clicking the "off" button.

Disk space used - well, I got two drives, 1 TB and 500 GB, how many GBs the OS uses is not important at all, I think Adobe CS4 takes more space than the OS anyway, but who cares, my drives are about 33% full - and that's how I like it.

As far as drivers for devices, it's possible that Ubuntu has drivers for newer computer hardware, but I have once bought into all the low-resource hype and tried to install linux on my old Win2K machine (pentium 3) once my anti-virus subscription ran out. I've got to tell you, neither OpenSuse nor Ubuntu managed to recognize my Belkin USB2 add-on card. Thus the result - copying a file from a USB drive with Win2k was literally several times faster than on linux. Firefox was also extremely slow. So, at least for the old machine, i.e. low resources, I am staying with Win2K.

Now, as far as Vista vs 7, I have them dual-boot on the same Dell, and Win 7 does everything faster than Vista. Both are 64-bit, I have no idea how that would compare to 32-bit on the same machine. So I am not sure about the results presented here. The article said nothing about whether (or what kind) an anti-virus was installed, it actually impacts the boot-up time quite a bit.

The only relevant test was copying large files between drives. Here in my experience Win 7 is better than Vista, but Linux on the old hardware was really bad in this respect, way losing to Win2K. But Vista is indeed rather annoying in this respect.

"Free" in opensource means liberty???

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 1, 2009 @ 10:22pm

Wow, that's an interesting statement - How exactly not using open source amounts to slavery? Unless you are a programmer/developer/wanna-be hacker or something, why would you care about ability to see and modify the source code? Most people have no idea about source code, so really the only thing they care about is how much you pay for your software and how do you get tech support. Try calling a Linux manufacturer with a question. (Going through forums and tons of messages in mail archives is really not an alternative).

?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 2, 2009 @ 8:13pm

I see that all the ..nux users are afraid with W7...

All unix flavours

Vedam (not verified) - March 4, 2009 @ 8:38pm

All the Operating systems you are mentioning like UBUTU, OSX, Linux are copy flavours of unix and they are built on same layer. Only windows is build on diffrent platform.. While coming to installation and working i am more comfortable with 7 rather ubuntu. I have installed both in my laptop with 2Gb of ram. I felt 7 is fater than this flavour of linux.

Thanks for the info

Anonymous Penguin odiebugs (not verified) - March 5, 2009 @ 2:24pm

Thanks for the test. Its amazing that most all of the posters
here didn't know that windows was made for women and tards.
Windows 7 is vista the way it was suppose to be made.
They fix there mistakes and all the clowns get on there knees
for microsuck. These clowns go years without reinstalling,
well, when you use a computer besides looking at kiddie porn
like the posters here,and use it as a computer, windows is a error dump and has nothing but problems. I am not going into every detail of registry or driver problems or kernel of the OS. Intel and amd,when they make a better product,there is a real change, microsuck adds eyecandy and a small kernel and the boat load of clowns jump on it like it was the greatest thing in the world. Most everyone here will be more comfortable with win 7, like I said,it is made for women and tards so they can sell it to anyone too fill there pockets
and the blockheads can think there running a computer.

losers, don't bitch about the test,do your own with your laptops,that are garbage,and don't forget they make a nice purse that you can carry it in.

Bla bla bla

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 10, 2009 @ 2:51pm

Windows uber ales linus-fags

Usless tests that prove nothing

rocknblogger (not verified) - March 10, 2009 @ 11:24pm

Like many have already said before me, the numbers don't add up to the specs of the test system. I have Vistax^$ and Ubuntu8.10x32 in dual boot. While I use Ubuntu for most of my day to day needs I have to keep a copy of Windows for certain things that I can only do i Windows. I am getting closer to using Ubuntu only with VBox installed and Vista installed within VBox, still some things refuse to work.

Look the bottom line is preference. Each of us has a preference for various reasons and to each of us our reasons are valid. Is it true that Windows programs are prettier and in some cases like Photoshop an other Adobe Pro software more usable? Of course. But it is also true that this stuff costs thousands of dollars to get. While most Windows software does have a Linux alternative unless you use it to make a living from most of it will do fine. I can almost do everything in Ubuntu that I can in Windows. I'll probably never get rid of Windows because I am a gamer but if Linux ever gets that right I think it would be a wrap for me.

With all of that said my biggest reasons for using Ubuntu 90% of the time is A. Stability, in my experience it simply never crashes, and B. Security, I don't have to worry about viruses and other crap that I constantly have to make sure my A/V software is up to date and running smoothly in Windows.

Lastly a couple people mentioned the System restore feature in Windows that can save your ass. Sure if it works, I've had the experience that it does not always work as expected. In Ubuntu I have a back-up done weekly and incrementally on a daily basis so that pretty much cancels out the Sys Restore.

Windows on Fusion

Question Bill (not verified) - March 11, 2009 @ 1:59am

I don't understand...

My Windows 7 takes only 30 seconds to boot in VMware Fusion, why not just add that to the mix?

I just like knowing that if

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 12, 2009 @ 9:48pm

I just like knowing that if I hit the "on" button on my ubuntu machine, which is years old, I can expect to get to work as soon as I see a desktop. I don't have to wait for an extra 5 minutes while my hard drives sound like they're trying to escape while windows ACTUALLY loads. I can click on Firefox, wait about 2 seconds from fresh boot and I'll be @ my homepage. If I do this in windows as soon as the desktop is VISIBLE, I would first of all be lucky if the click registers, and even luckier because I could go play a round of super smash bros while I wait for the antivirus, antispyware, 3rd driver tools, chat programs, office preloader to start up.

Also, updating on windows, could there be a more painful process?!

keep in mind

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 13, 2009 @ 2:05am

that Windows with all the applications Ubuntu comes is A-LOT slower.

Benchmarks Vs. Daily Experience

Lucas (not verified) - March 13, 2009 @ 2:31am

I run both WinXP and Ubuntu boxes. My Laptop is Windows ( came installed) and the other machines in my house are Ubuntu. I use CentOS for my server platforms at "work" and I've been using some flavor of linux for almost 10 years now.

I still like the basic look of the windows gui better. It seems more mature than ubuntu. Perhaps its just the completely different fonts or something or maybe its the video subsystem making drop shadows seem deeper (and dirtier). I also like the "all business" look of some of the MS applications over the kinda technical look of say open office.

But it all comes down to what we do with our machines that makes the difference. Personally, I'd buy Bill Gates and those guys at MS a beer for helping to build this computer based world we are now living in. But I'd buy the linux developers each a mercedes if I could because when I want to build something that makes me money i use linux. It's just more stable and thats what my customers care about. I don't get calls unless the box is down. Since putting away my ASP/MSSQL applications and turning off windows servers, want to know how many "oh god the box is down again" calls I've gotten... yep, you guessed it. None. For me, LAMP is THE business platform and if it aint broke, dont fix it.

Out of curiosity, why are we rebooting ubuntu as a routine when updates are done? I had redhat boxes that had uptimes of 2 years or more. Developers know, you shouldn't have to reboot.

Why Ext - why not Reiser

GigiReiser (not verified) - March 13, 2009 @ 5:35pm

Why not user ReiserFS, which is known to handle a lot better than Ext system with many small files, or XFS for large files?

I switched to reiserFS and it's incomparable - as performance, as well as time to recover in case of a failure.

IMHO, Ext, even Ext4, is not the best FS for linux distros

comments

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 15, 2009 @ 5:41pm

a lot of valid points have been made here,

but i can say a few things here which cannot of any windows os really (and i am down the middle, not biast)

1)my ubuntu 9.10 boots in 8-10 seconds to the login
2)my xp boots in 14-16 seconds to the login

3)with my ubuntu i can make a bootable duplicate of the installed os directly to dvd

4)with xp or above the closest thing is win_pe images or cd's
which is a slimmed down os with most functionality taken out on purpose, except networking (and os installs for some)

i have since yesterday just learnt the ubuntu to dvd method, it is quite literally the full os on a disk, oh and the good bit is it allows install, direct to any computer it can boot on (in my situation, it was 64bit)

i might even start a site for iso's of my os to download.

check ubuntu live dvd gui creator, or similar words

Not Simply A Baseless Analysis......

Agreeing with Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 17, 2009 @ 11:57am

...... but a well graphed and formatted, long waste of everyone else's time.

I can't wait to see you comparison for cars....
1) The Ford Fiesta's door's open faster than the Lexus'
2) From key in pocket to achieving ignition the Fiesta trumps the Lexus
3) Moving 4 people from the sidewalk into the cars and back again is more efficient utilizing the Fiesta
4) The Fiesta takes up less space in your garage

Conclusion:
After an in-depth review we realized that our friend was eating a pineapple and got bitten by an ant. We were eating apples but weren't bitten by any ants. So we can only conclude that ants like pineapples.

Windows 7 and Vista and Linux

Windows User (not verified) - March 17, 2009 @ 7:28pm

I am a long time windows user, have been using all versions of windows from 3.1 to windows 7. I also tried RedHat Linux and Ubuntu. I guess I am just used to windows, so it is hard to switch to Linux based OS. I mean I don't hate Linux just because I am a Windows user.

I have my HP Pavilion Laptop DV9207us with 2 drives (both 320GB SATA), 3GB of RAM, I have dual boot Vista and Windows 7 (both 32 bit) and have been using Windows 7 since the beta release (more than a month), I find that Windows 7 is much faster than Vista in every aspects: bootup, shutdown, copying, maintaining, browsing internet... Only thing that I am still skeptical about windows 7 is that it doesn't have drivers for my printers which work fine under Vista.

Recycling 1 item (0 bites)

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 19, 2009 @ 2:05am

I am a 7 beta tester, and that IS really quite annoying!!

response to all linux users

Very Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 22, 2009 @ 9:36pm

It appears to me that years ago linux would have had an advantage to the majority of pc users, just as Reaganomics did in the eighties. That was a republican badge of honor. Today the hardware technology has exceeded the requirements of bloated windows products, thus making the eye candy os less of a concern. The average pc user (purchaser) is not interested in learning code and is not technically inclined, therefore, they don't care if it takes a whole 2 minutes to load or not. Windows is broadly known and easily navigated to the majoriy of pc users. By the way, the trickle down economic theory works for the American economy only if the trickle down stays within the borders. Unfortunately this is no longer the case with big business going offshore for manufacturing. Linuxed works for a minority, which republicans seem to be now. So my opinion is for both republicans and linux users is: Let It Go.........................Trickledown and Linux used to be relevant

what a pile of crap.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 24, 2009 @ 4:23am

This is total bullshit. Windows 7 does not in fact require 11 GB to install. For gods sake, I have the 64bit ultimate beta build 7000 and it fits on a singe layer DVD. So to say it requires 11 gigs is total bull.

You can be serious.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 24, 2009 @ 8:49am

You can't be serious, these test are like a morons asking.
Things like "how many mouse clicks does it take to install a OS program in default manner"
What the hell kind of a test is that anyway?

Try more at the real performance.
Who the f care about if the computer takes 10 sec longer to start, if a computer is twice as strong because it takes longer to start, then I will gladly have that instead.

Damn. Worthless test -.-'

linux is the best

mohaned_nj (not verified) - March 24, 2009 @ 6:42pm

linux is the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. bye bye windows ............. hahahaha

Login Time

Robin (not verified) - March 29, 2009 @ 6:14pm

On the boot up test I noticed that it said from the time turned on until the desktop was shown. This does show the boot up time, but not the time it takes for the OS to be usable. Once a desktop is show there are still processes being loaded. I have found that with both XP and Vista they will show the desktop quite a while before all processes are loaded. In windows it leaves the computer at a crawl as soon as you log in, until every thing is opened.This is one of the main complaints about vista's startup time, since it will open so many processes. Windows 7 has been developed to not to open as many processes at login, but rather as needed. As for Ubuntu (8.10 which I use myself) I have found that when the desktop shows up it is usable after only a couple of seconds.
I don't mean to preach linux to anyone. I see how people can prefer windows to be more user-friendly out of the box. I change from XP to ubuntu a while ago, it took me a while to get it how I like it, but there are so many options for linux if you take the time to look. The biggest factors were Vista costs several hundred dollars, and would barely run on my computer.

Forget about UBUNTU

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 2, 2009 @ 2:33am

Why can't they just make an OS as easy to use as Windows? ubuntu is a headache for the average user. That's all folks. a headache. Nothing works with it. Why do they all return their laptops with Ubuntu installed? Just ask yourselves this.

As soon as they make it easy to make every program to run, then i will pass to ubuntu for real, if not just FORGET ABOUT UBUNTU.....

Linux (Debian Ubuntu) is Free, but you get what you pay for.

Leaheart (not verified) - April 3, 2009 @ 6:08pm

Let me first say I agree with:
"Is this article a joke? Benchmark something important"

-Install is a one time, unless you somehow are stupid enough to reinstall often...then it's your problem.
-Install clicks, I feel more is better. If you want to personalize your install, then you need to click more, dur!
-Disk space used, cry me a river if only a few extra gigs is terrible.

Now here's something to consider for once, with a brain!:

-Windows Vista or 7 boots longer, because it DOES in-fact come with more features than Linux. Duh, extra gig install, if you look around a bit.

-Linux is Free, you get what you pay for though. you have to hunt for software and drivers, windows you can go anywhere because it's supported by ALL companies.

-Why Get linux to use OpenOffice, Gimp, or alike...? Just GET Windows, because mimic softwares doesn't compete well as their not members of the majority and isn't as supported.

-Linux cannot run EXEs, UH-OH! That means, good luck running games, and software you used to love (that worked only on windows!). Emulation will put it's "benchmark" behind Windows.

-Windows is dynamic performance, how fast depends on hardware, and at higher hardware it can be faster than Linux.

Now I've ran Ubuntu 8.10, Windows XP Professional, and Windows Vista Ultimate, and soon trying Windows 7. So far, Linux does not impress me.

-Windows if FREE, when it comes with your bought PCs from vendors which seomtimes include FREE OEM reinstallation disc...Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.

My Specs:

3.40 GHz Pentium 4 (Socket 775)
512 MB DDR2 RAM
128 MB ATI Radeon x300 (PCIe)
250 GB HDD (Decimal count)

3.06 GHz Pentium Celeron (Socket 478)
1536 MB DDR1 RAM
256 MB vNidia 7800 GS (AGP)
250 GB HDD (Decimal count)

2 PCs, both run better on Windows.
You can only wish for something free & better.
Welcome to the real world, good things cost good money.

I'm a PC, and I know what I'm talking about at age 20.

Spellcheck, my bad.

Leaheart (not verified) - April 3, 2009 @ 6:13pm

Let me corrent my spelling a bit:

"Windows if FREE, when it comes with your bought PCs from vendors which seomtimes include FREE OEM reinstallation disc...Dell, HP, Gateway, etc."

Windows IS free, just want to clear that in-case for issues about it.

Thank you...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 6, 2009 @ 5:25am

Thank you...

I use them all... I don't prefer Ubuntu or Vista... (Windows 7 does not count until I've kick the tires more.) I dual boot, Vista takes a long time to boot compared to Fedora 9. But I really don't care about boot time, if I did, I would be using my Commodore 64 that booted in less than 1 second... Shut down is slower with Vista also, but since I walk out the door after turning of my monitor I could not care less. As for performance, I find Fedora taking the edge. It helps to turn off all the Vista cute stuff that slows it down.

I find Linux much easier to use and fix when something goes wrong - Sorry, format and reinstall is not acceptable. I've spent more time fixing Windows when something is not working correctly. So if you use Linux, you should have a backup system; if you use Windows, you must have a backup system no matter what. (Ya, I've lost more data with Windows than Linux)

Don't get me wrong, Windows works well for running games; however, for work I use Linux. (Systems Analyst for major ERD on Oracle.)

Thanks for the article and a thank you to all of you that took the time to comment, I was entertained.

Ur all forgetting one thing.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 9, 2009 @ 4:52am

It was a DELL Machine. results are bound to be screwed up :)

HAHAHAHAHAH.

And to the bafoon who said only consoles are for gaming WAKE UP and have a word with urself :)

This is a benchmark, a datum only

dubbc (not verified) - April 10, 2009 @ 3:15am

This is just a datum for you to compare. Relevant or not depends how you project from the above datum.

Its great to have this kind of data.
This is a latest comparative data. Whether Ubuntu is presentable or not? It isnt an issue here.

Like it or not. This work is top of the notch on today date.

Idiot posters

Not an idiot (not verified) - April 10, 2009 @ 10:15am

The above comments are irrelevant, because of XYZ or some other bullshit I just made up.

I love Ubuntu, and this

Matthew L. (not verified) - April 10, 2009 @ 1:01pm

I love Ubuntu, and this proves that I'm right to!
I'm convincing all my friends to switch lol!

#! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #!

camshron (not verified) - April 12, 2009 @ 3:58am

#! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #! #! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #! #! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #! #! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #! #! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #!

Faster
Better
and more Hackable!

helloooooooo

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 15, 2009 @ 6:47pm

helloooooooo

how many times does it re-boot

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 21, 2009 @ 8:27am

Having never installed windows Vista. But every other version
it has to re-boot several times while it is being installed.
This never happens with any version of Linux. Install once Then boot once. Finished.

>nn

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 21, 2009 @ 1:59pm

Школота?????!!!!!! Что там в убунту недоделанного??? Все *никсы одинаковые, разница в комплектации софтом, ненужно пиздеть. Поставь на нее KDE и вот тебе и мандрива))) peace/

built in software - windows

Anonymous Penguin's Cousin (not verified) - April 22, 2009 @ 3:15am

i think some people have to remember that microsoft is governed heavily by what they can put into their OS... they have been to court a few times because some people think that microsoft is forcing you to use windows media player or internet explorer... if they were to just put in some photoediting software, dvd software, office software etc they would get shouted at and be made to take it out.
linux on the other hand isnt governed in this way because all the software is free and can be distibuted by anyone to anyone.
Also note that linux programs are just adaptaions of programs made for windows, sure there are a few exceptions but think of the program compatibitly difference, ease of access, simplicty. your average joe can go on the internet, send an email, listen to music, install there favourite game all with a few clicks. linux on the other hand take some knowledge to get these similar things working, i dont know about you but not everyone knows how to download and install packages on a linux based OS
microsoft know that the majority of there customers just want to go on there pc, write an artical, send an email, read the news etc without having to know too much about computers...

ok, how about the truth...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 25, 2009 @ 1:37am

Ok, so I use Ubuntu, and I use Vista, and I use Mac OS X too. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Here's my short list;

1) Windows just works. yup, most of the time it just works. I keep it up to date, I don't run any anti-virus other than Windows defender and an occasional spybot check. It's fast, it never crashes and it runs all the apps I use every day.

2) Ubuntu more or less works too. I'm a developer, so I like to port my code to linux(gnu/linux for some) as well, I like gcc, I want to like KDE more and Gnome is passable. It's stable and it doesn't crash. I have near bleeding edge (but popular) hardware, and everything seems OK. The ATI/NVIDIA drivers solve most of my desktop performance issues just fine.
I like the power of the command line, I like guis that make sense. I even like some nice eye candy. It makes working on the box more enjoyable.

3) Mac OS X, yeah it just works too. It's ok, it's different in both good ways and bad ways. Sometime I think different just to be different. It does present a different way of building a usable system based on *nix than most linux distros. Not my favorite platform but I can appreciate why people like it.

So what does it all mean? It means that most benchmarks like this are pointless. I install an OS once or twice a year, I use each one every day, or at least a few times a week. I know what I'm doing, I don't get virus on Windows, I don't screw up my configuration files on linux. Each OS fits a niche in my everyday tasks, they all co-exist, they all have merits. Do I care about a few seconds here or there in some benchmark? no, not really, unless there was compelling differences for the apps I use. So deal with it folks, use what works for you. For me, I like all three.

Please re-do test!

Itix (not verified) - April 28, 2009 @ 6:49pm

Now that Ubuntu 9.04 is out sharp, I'd love to see how it handles.

My brother had the Jaunty alpha on his self built desktop and it had about the same performace figures as Intrepid. It crashed on him so he reverted back to Intrepid and now that he has installed the Sharp version... WOW!

There's a huge difference.

Theres a huge difference on my eee 901 as well ;)

What the f...?

Itix (not verified) - April 28, 2009 @ 7:22pm

I wonder if the rest of the guys (yes, guys, because girls would not be this immature) commenting are ~5 years old.

Both sides, especially the windows user side (no, not bcause I prefer Ubuntu, it's a fact) are awfully childish when it comes to these benchmarks.

Windows 7 is a beta, yes. A beta is often feature frozen and rarely improves in performance. An alpha does.

I suspect (as always) that the microsoft fanboys in here are payed by Microsoft. I had an acquaintance once who was payed to attend microsoft lectures and he used to have the same arguments (Linux is just a text console and windows vista is NOT bad). I know that he said that just to justify him getting money from microsoft so I suspect that there are similar deals among the fanboys here as well.

Aero is not that fantastic actually, I know, I have used it a lot on my brothers desktop computer. It is extremely slow compared to compiz and you can't do much with it.

Now to my fellow ubunt-ists; Be more mature!
This is ridiculous. Linux (and Ubbuntu) has it's flaws. Games, software- and hardware support is an obvious one. To say it is the perfect OS for everyone is lying.

When my mother can buy a computer with Ubuntu and use it like she uses her (awfully slow and sluggish) vista machine, it is the perfect OS. When the hardcore gamer who has busted at least 12 keyboards against his (yes, his because girls don't do immature stuff like that) screen can buy a computer with Ubuntu and get 10 times the performance out of the machine compared to the same machine with windows, without any installation problems, it is the perfect OS.

Until then, let's keep striving forward!

Lot of shit

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 30, 2009 @ 7:51pm

This bemchmark story is full of shit, belive me, what are we here, lunatics ? Are you crazy, dumass, or what??
What kind of story is this? What are you trying to prove?
If you like Kinux, so be it. fuck you and your banchmark!!!!

Real World Comparison

Florida Tux (not verified) - May 2, 2009 @ 7:35pm

My experience in a nutshell. My computer: Asus board with P4 processor, Intel onboard video and 2 Gigs of ram.
My cost for Ubuntu or Windows $0.00 (My employer picks up the bill for my personal use of Windows.)
Windows Vista: did not support the Intel onboard video. The end.
Window 7 Beta: Loaded OK, but wrong refresh rate on the monitor (Sony Multiscan 540; yeah, I still have one of those), HP parallel printer not recognized, onboard sound not recognized, USB printer/scanner recognized but no scanner functionality. Any Microsoft games or screen savers unplayable because of lack of 3D acceleration. Bare OS with no user software.
Ubuntu: Everything recognized and working fine first pass through. No adjustment needed of any kind. Complete suite of all the software I can use and more. Needless to say, I am writing this on my Ubuntu install and if I could I would gladly give my Windows disks to anybody who wants them. That's what the "real world" experience is to an average computer user. To me Windows is a huge hassle and Ubuntu is simple.

I think its funny people do

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 5, 2009 @ 3:24am

I think its funny people do tests like this. Most of this is meaningless, and yet it still shows Linux as the overall superior OS.

Now lets factor in a few other things.

After 6 months of heavy use (like college students), windows will be virtually unusable because of the way it handles applications.

The amount of money one spends on each compared to the quality of the computing experience is insane. Someone said something about "what about gamers?!". Here's an answer: virtualization. I do that right now, and I can run any game I want just fine in my virtual Windows, while using Linux for actual work. I will say though, I'm not using a standard distro, I'm using Slamd64, recompiled to a custom distro, but at the same time, my computer can do anything and everything I need it to do, and it can do it faster than a Customized Vista box with the exact same hardware.

Oh, and you are running a bloated GNOME desktop environment against Windows, which integrates the DE to the OS. How about we make it completely even and run a stripped version of the Linux Kernel with no GUI, or hell, throw in Flux if you insist on a GUI, and see what the results are. I guarantee Windows can't stand up to it. I have a very old Gateway (400Mhz P2 with 128MB RAM running slackware with flux, and It owns my laptop (2Ghz Merom and 2GB RAM) thats running Ubuntu 8.10.

Also, with enough tweaking, you can't even compare the Windows OS to a Linux Distro. I don't care what you little IT fanboys say, Linux is a beast when you know how to use it. Windows, well...isn't.

As for the issue of boot times and windows needing to be restarted several times, that is just you silly sheep trying to argue that Windows is really better it just needs more time. Okay, how about we take away your anti virus, and don't allow you to install ANYTHING other than what comes on the CD. You might boot faster for a bit, but in a few days you'll be smoked.

Windows is nice for certain things, such as playing games, and having the support for anything, but in performance terms, you can't even begin to compare it to Linux.

I'd like to see this run against FreeBSD as well, and maybe Solaris?

If the game makers would support some *NIX based standard for coding, windows would be useless. The same goes for third party hardware makers. The thing is, there is no reason to support free software when you can get paid to support non-free software.

I did try to make it short

MoRpheuS_x (not verified) - May 5, 2009 @ 10:21am

I m a vista user but i m seriously considering switching to Linux. I ve been a Linux user in the far past in a quad boot system with Nt4.0,win98,XPpro and SuSe 4(all installed in a number of partitions on 2 HDDs).I ve discovered the SuSe install in an official graphics card driver cd (i think from Hercules) which for some strange reason instead of having drivers had a full SuSe distro.I was very happy discovering this and decided to install.I only had win98 installed at the time as XP was very young then and i didnt like either WinMe or 2000 which i had to use at work unfortunately. I did the quad thing very easily and the reason for so many OSes was that i m an IT engineer so i had NT/XP only for testing programs and settings for my clients and win98 and SuSe for personal use. I found very easy the installation process of SuSe (the only difficulty being setting the x-server) which i found very strange as the main talks back then where that Linux was hard to install (thats why the "clicks to install" test is significant for many non-Linux users as they may believe that the old install problems still apply to Linux). Linux was by far the fastest OS on all occasions in my PC and the most reliable along with NT.I used KDE desktop.Then came the troubles..Very confusing and time consuming install/uninstall process for programs,very little hardware support (i never managed to make my modem work) and on top of all this was the confusion about KDE/Gnome choices and the different distros.All this confusion made me switch back to windows.Now as i said i m a vista user in my HP 9000 series notebook,i ve sell my desktop and didnt replace it yet so i m stuck with the notebook.From the moment i ve bought it i wanted to switch back to XP but lucking drivers from HP i ve stayed with vista. In my almost 2 years experience running vista i ve found out to my surprise that they are far better than XP in terms of security and stability/reliability.At first i suggested to all my customers to stay with XP untill some time passed and i have tested vista.After that i ve installed vista to all my customers and they left me without work! (No calls for problems anymore!). Their stability is amazing (only applies to HomePremium and Ultimate) but..They are extremely slow and recourses-hungry,very slow boot/shutdown/restart and programs launch,they need much additional software installed to get usefull,they still need restarts though much less than XP,they need many services and little things disabled to get lighter,they have serious problems with uninstalling software as they always leave files and registry strings behind causing a much slower system over time.With these considering i m going for a Linux distro but the confusing aspects still remain (which distro? KDE or Gnome? Will my devices work?).I still believe Vista is a very good OS but micro$ofts policy of releasing a new OS instead of making (the very expensive) Vista better or delaying Vista to release a really good OS is making me very angry and seriously thinking of switching permanently to linux or even OS-X for my personal use.Last, when comparing any M$ OS with Linux always have in mind that Vista/Win7 or whatever are VERY EXPENSIVE while Linux is free,you are stuck with services (DRM) and rootkits you dont have any way of turning off/uninstalling,micro$oft will make your M$/OS obsolete as soon as you install it (along with your all new and much expensive hardware),you will need additional expensive software to make your PC fully secure and functional,you will need a very fast DSL connection and much patience to download the necessary security updates after you install vista. I think i ve covered it. Sorry for the long story.

Last thing

MoRpheuS_x (not verified) - May 5, 2009 @ 10:43am

Oh! And something last to consider when comparing Windows with Linux is that the only real advantage of Windows is having (as others already mentioned) many professional suites like photoshop etc not released for Linux and of course games. It s not Linux to blame or micro$soft to praise for that fact. Think of it.. we created this conditions for Linux. We as users made micro$oft what it is today,we preferred their products thus the software houses and game developers followed. It s on the users to switch tables around by choosing Linux and the software houses and game developers will be forced to follow whether they like it or not.

Again? Dont blame me..

MoRpheuS_x (not verified) - May 5, 2009 @ 12:05pm

Some say that with todays hardware there is no problem running vista/Win7..!! Is that so?? Do you think that every consumer can afford to spend 1000€ or 1500$ just for the box? Cause with a cheaper system vista will face problems when the user starts installing programs. Or do you forget that notebooks exist too?? (which are already overpriced comparing to their desktop equivalent). Also does the advancement in hardware means in any way that you are excused to load it with crappy,huge and very bad programmed OSes? Micro$oft in reality never made an OS advancement after NT4.0/win98/win2000 they just make the same OS over and over and just add some features which should be already there,fix problems of their previous OS which shouldnt be there anyway and add support for new hardware. A way to understand how bad designed windows is just use a notebook in the pricerange of about 900€ (mine cost me 1800€) which is supposed to be well equipped by todays standards and comes preloaded with vista home premium. You will find out that listening your machine working you will have the feeling that IT SUFFERS running vista. Add antivirus and firewall on top of that and you will see your resources getting devoured and an alarming temperature issue just by running the desktop. Now unplug your power cord and try to use a crawling machine fast enough to finish your work before it drains your battery.. All these problems could also mean that vista uses your hardware to its full potential which would mean that you get maximum performance (give me a sec to stop laughing). We all know that with vista this isnt the case. Another problem which wasnt discussed here is fragmenting. The huge disk space vista occupy after install is an issue as with fragmenting the disk will need more time to defragment and with the 5400rpm disks most notebooks use (to avoid cost,temperature problems and shorter battery life) defragmenting takes forever. Now tell me that a lighter OS isnt needed with todays technology..

HTCP

Absolutshame (not verified) - May 10, 2009 @ 9:20pm

I tried Linux (Ubuntu 64-bit) and I had three major issues:

1. No support for my ATI video card which NEEDS HDMI out support-I get video but no audio out of HDMI.

2. Unable to play Blu-Ray format or HD-DVD fom my dvd drive. And yes I have both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD drives.

3. Ubuntu is not compatible with my Dinivo Mini keyboard.

If there are drivers available to make this happen then it shouldn't be this hard to find. Ubuntu is completely worthless as an HTPC.I built my HTCP so it's not like I am an idiot, it really shouldn't be this hard to find drivers.

To be fair I had similiar issues with W7.

1TB HD
ATI HD3450 w/HDMI
8gigs DDR2 800/6400 Corsair ram
AMD Phenom Quad 9500+ 2.2Ghz
LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Drive
Samsung 1080p 50-inch DLP

Ubuntu doesn't seem to be on par with my needs, I don't have time to make it as good as Vista.

Install mouse clicks

Perberos (not verified) - May 13, 2009 @ 9:38pm

I has been instaled windows 50 times in same computer. (During 9 years)
When i come to Ubuntu. I install 7 times in same computer. (During 4 years)

All times when Ubuntu stop to work, was because windows kill the linux partition.

Sorry about my english. /(u_u)

Ha, win98!

Perberos (not verified) - May 13, 2009 @ 10:22pm

Somebody remember how painfull is install win 98? HaHaha.
Now all is only "next" "next" "next" ...

But...

O.S. is not installed each 5 minutes...

BTW, I say to all future Windows 7 Users
"Enjoy your new expensive virus"

Ubuntu = cant install

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 16, 2009 @ 12:33am

Ubuntu = cant install Debian
Ubuntu = Debian unstable
Ubuntu = Good hardware support for linux
Ubuntu = slow linux vs all other
Vista = slow microsoft
Ubuntu or Linux = refresh rate and font problem
Utorrent best torrent client windows only.
Firefox slow on linux
Flash very slow on linux vs windows same hardware
Java very slow on linux vs windows same hardware
power managemnent on linux unstable
wine is not for me

best os today:
Debian , Slackware , Windows XP.

Penguin in the BUFF

Linux Buff (not verified) - May 17, 2009 @ 2:28am

well folks, I saw the test results, so did you, Ubuntu IS FASTER! so --- DEAL WITH IT.

When I sit down to my PC I want it boot up and load quickly so I can git my work done and then go off and play my PS3.

PC are DEFINATELY NOT comparable with game consoles on the simple measure of Effort. With my PS3 i just shove in a disc, it boots up, does any updates in approximately 2 mins, and I'm away. I don't have to worry about viruses and all that other GARBAGE. Also on the other simple measure of cost, where I live in AU it costs $3000 for a decent gaming machine, $100 for virus protection annually, + all the software, while it only costs me $700 for a PS3 and I can either load Linux on the PS3 for my office chores, or buy a small notebook for $1200 with Ubuntu to do my office chores. Which leaves me with $900-$2300 to spend on games. Definately the better option.

What really makes me angry is when dopey people say things like "I don't use any internet browser other than windows explorer because I simply couldn't live without tabs" - Firefox HAD TABS FIRST, or "I couldn't stand using any OS other than VISTA because of how it looked" KDE had all of the fancy garbage BEFORE VISTA.

Finally I like Linux so ITS BETTER!

I love linux ubuntu and if

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 19, 2009 @ 4:59am

I love linux ubuntu and if you have a problem too bad

Ross

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 20, 2009 @ 7:28pm

Okay, cool, I've seen the benchmark tests and I have had both Ubuntu Jaunty and Xubuntu installed on my little netbook and Laptop. Whilst my P4 laptop excels when running Ubuntu, compared to windows XP, Ubuntu does have the upper-hand, I like the fact that after the boot up, there is no more HD activity and the GUI is slick and that even with all the options switched on, the machine is still not stressed.

The same goes for the netbook - However, what I have noticed is that there is significant latency on the laptop, between any human input and actions occurring on the screen. There are still problems with with displaying flash video in that frames are all too easily dropped. MP3s sound a bit rough to. Firefox is a real pain to work with and severely lags when there is just simply one flash item in the window - These problems never occur in Windows XP.

My verdict is that, Ubuntu is great for mid to high end machines- I love it. But it is a bit frustrating to use in Netbooks.

I disagree...

Aaron (not verified) - May 22, 2009 @ 1:54am

I disagree with the majority of results comparing Vista to 7...

Now my experiences with Vista are using an OEM installation, which takes 6 hours to install on my brand new laptop... about 2 hours for vista install... and 4 hours for crap-ware installations...

I can definitively say that Windows 7 runs 50-75% faster in all respects than the Vista installation I had.

I also needed to reinstall Vista each month otherwise everything would start bugging out and crashing up.

open source will rule over windows

dude (not verified) - May 26, 2009 @ 4:00am

why pay for a OS that crashes on a new pc your paying for a window that doesn't open i like the way windows hides the blue screen of death by default and reboots the pc lol Linux is free if it don't work then you haven't lost anything thumbs up Linux ppl :):):) open source all the way

open source will rule over windows

dude (not verified) - May 26, 2009 @ 4:08am

why pay for a toaster to only cook half the bread consumer madness and the b gate foundation is cashing in on fools good luck what is the world coming too lmfao :)

an IT bod of 20 years

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 26, 2009 @ 9:06am

an IT bod of 20 years ...

Um... you do realize that the reason ubuntu doesn't come with a lot of those codecs is because including them in the base install would cause the OS to violate laws in some countries, including the US? MP3, for example, is not an open-source codec, and so it actually makes sense to make the user explicitly give the OK to install it.

So lets look at how easy it is to hunt down a codec you don't have...

Windows: Open your browser, navigate to google, type the name of the codec and hope that it's in the first few pages. Download the codec, install the codec, hope it works.

Ubuntu: sudo apt-get (package name here... try gstreamer)

Huh... wasn't that easy?

WASTED TIME!!

masterzoran (not verified) - May 27, 2009 @ 8:46am

People WILL PAY 350$ for Windows 7 and Windows WILL STAY most popular OS.

People WILL NOT PAY even 35$- ONLY (10%) for Linux! And if Linux eventually goes to charge it would be GAME OVER to it!

DELL is rising voice against W7 price = DELL is going to lose!

SO SIMPLE!

windows has touch support for tablets.

Anonymous Penguin guy (not verified) - May 29, 2009 @ 6:07am

ubuntu and linux os's need the support of touch on certain tablet pc's, like n-trig digitizer. now only windows has this. windows will own the touch tablet market until. my hp tx2 would be sweet with any linux distro if worked.
windows is slow everyone knows, even if it boots faster then before. i like windows, i love linux. donate to open source keep it free. bill wants money and power, open source wants freedom. penguins roam free! windows wants to be more like linux os's, windows i can see right through you.

Extra software

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 29, 2009 @ 8:14am

Lets not forget that Ubuntu comes preloaded with many software included a full Office suite, that's make it an even faster installer. That wasn't noted during the "Install time" section.