Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7


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.


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 or Twitter

Your comments

Re: On what planet

> On what planet does windows vista boot faster than ubuntu?

On my experience after install windows boots fast, but after using it few months the boot time gets so long, at least until Vista.

Bleeding edge hardware

I wonder how long it took to find a Linux distribution that would install ... I've just bought an i7 system with 12GB memory (P6T motherboard) and I'm still "fighting" with it trying to get a 64-bit Linux with Xen that supports it.
(XP installs OK, but XP X64 is giving problems with recognizing the video card).

Test Matlab

Linux is the fastest Matlab OS 50% faster than vista

Antivirus missing.

I'd love to see these benchmarks with MS OneCare or some other AV installed since that is a more realistic default build

Boot Time is dependant on BIOS + OS

To all the people complaining about how their system boots so much faster, consider the point made in the article that it takes 20 seconds for the BIOS to get done with its thing.

I replaced an aging motherboard with an Asus last year, and was appalled to find that it takes 30 seconds or so to get out of the BIOS.

Anyway, with the boottime graph, the importance in the difference between OSes. The time spent in BIOS will cancel out.

Not reflected by my experience

Benchmarks presented here do not reflect my experience with Windows 7, Vista and Ubuntu. Large dose of NaCl required.

Also, I'd like to see some kind of "experience consistency" metric. With linux its terrible:

- You wait an hour for a fsck before you get to your desktop
- The system hangs on shutdown
- It actually suspends to disk! but its always messed up on resume (Yes I have modern, mainstream hardware - a dell).

Windows on the other hand, is consistent for me. I'll take the consistenty and functionality over a little bit more speed 10/10.


I'd be very interested to see how the comparison would go using XFS instead. I'd imagine you'd see an improvement on the large files end of things HD to HD. No idea what else it could impact.



Lets get the benchmarks on the top 10 PC games


i'm going to say this, i'm a

i'm going to say this, i'm a big MS fan, but i agree, that file deleting dialog when it happens drives me up the wall too!

What a load of BS...

I just installed Windows 7, and no, I did not click 14 times to install it. 2-3 is more like it, which (once again) puts it way ahead of Linux.

Also. I got no idea where you got your stats concerning how big Vista is following installation. I just removed two Vista folders, one of them was 2 GB, the other one was 5 GB.
Again... What a load of BS...

The reason why Vista takes up more space than a Linux installation, is probably because of a phenomenon that Linuxusers aren't used to: Drivers for hardware and legacy hardware support!

That ties directly into another thing thats unknown to Linux users: Marketshare... Whahahah!

For those saying that Vista

For those saying that Vista doesn't come with apps, are you using Vista Ultimate? A default installation of Ubuntu (which I run at work, so yes I know what I'm talking about) includes dreadful multimedia support. Vista Ultimate comes with Windows Media Center. It supported our TV tuner card out of the box, with excellent functionality. Yes, MythTV is the Linux solution but it doesn't come with a default Ubuntu installation.

I recently tried to play a DVD under a recent Ubuntu install. It took me over an hour to get the codecs working. I tried several applications, I searched the Ubuntu forums, and EVENTUALLY got it working. Vista plays them out of the box. Most people don't know what a codec IS, let alone where to search for one.

It's not about boot times or clicks to install (most people get their machines OEM these days anyway or have a techie friend do it). It's about haven't-got-a-clue users. Apple is doing so well because their products Just Work and look great. Ubuntu has a way to go if it's going to win on the desktop against Windows 7.

Misconceptions and misteaks

1) Ubuntu !=linux
It is irrelevant what distribution one compares.
What IS important is the kernel.
Here the only relevant factor in a distro is how old the relase may be.
For example RH5.x with a 2.6.18.xx kernel versus Fedora10 which has a current kernel

2) ext4 is already an install option of Fedora10, just not the default.
If, at the installer prompt, one simply appends "ext4" it will build your filesystems as ext4.
Typical Ubuntu user who knows precious little about Linux or other distros.

3) Install times: Windows comes with few or little applications.
A typical modern Linux distro,by default, installs a complete set of basically 90% of the apps that people use.

4) Cost: There is still no comparison here.

"Working Desktop"

I'd like to know what "working desktop" really means as far as the boot time. For instance, on my mac, when the desktop is shown, it is actually "usable", meaning I can click things and do stuff.

On my Windows XP machine, once the desktop is shown, there is probably another 30 seconds of dead time before anything works as other things are still going on.


Not the article, no. The article was fine. It's everybody's comments that are pathetic. From sysadmins to desktop users. When will you learn (in life, really) that there are different perspectives on everything? "MEEEEEEEEH THAT'S NOT WHAT 'PERFORMANCE' IS!!" Performance is defined by what you use your computer for. If you use it as a paper weight, desktops are better than netbooks, but only if you don't move them a lot. Desktops are better door stops than netbooks but not if you want a more sleek door stop.

Do you see that there are different aspects on usability, ease-of-use, performance, etc? How about another example.

"MEEEEEEEEH NTFS vs. EXT3? 'NICE.'" -_- Duh? Why would you compare NTFS on Ubuntu to NTFS on Windows unless the article was on NTFS performance? And how would you even conduct a test on EXT3 under Windows that has any relevance to general, real-life situations? Windows pretty much only comes with NTFS, and does not support EXT3 out-of-the-box. Okay? If everything has to be the same EVERYWHERE, there wouldn't be any point of any benchmarks WOULD THERE..?

Good grief, people of the Internet! Think before posting! Learn to analyze your own thoughts and think about everything from every angle that you can imagine before uttering anything! (Not to say I'm perfect but my gosh.)

Benchmark - noun: "A standard by which something can be measured or judged." We all have identical, similar and/or differing standards on what should be conducted in a "benchmark". Accept that, or suck it.

If you don't like any benchmarks that are out, then conduct your own, or arrange in some way to have one conducted. If that is impossible for you for some reason, too bad. No need to harrass the good people who made this one. For them, maybe few mouse clicks are important for the installation process. Maybe they work as OS-installers? Huh? Shut up! The benchmark was a fair mix of tests, and even if it could also be interesting to know about performance down-the-line (time wise when a lot of sh** might've accumulated on the HD or many apps installed), this was a benching of newly-installed OS's. Alright?

Disclaimer: Not EVERYBODY's comments were pathetic. All appreciative comments for instance were quite nice to read. :-)

uummmmmm.... Who the hell


Who the hell cares? Fact of the matter is just look at the price for what you get. Every day I deal with people who have no idea how to use a computer. I install software for them, anitvirus protection, spyware protection. I do this and charge them for it.

They pay me to get rid of infections, do back ups for them. They pay me to save data and they pay me well. A guy down the road who had bought a computer last week and already he has come by to see if I can remove the virus. $500.00 laptop, Windows Vista, Norton anti virus, Winav2009, $150.00 to me to fix it. Priceless

Ubuntu != Linux

I would agree with that statement, but IMO Ubuntu is the #1 threat to the future of M$ Windows. It's an out-of-the-box solution that -- like said before -- supports vast majority of hardware, and will install easily on a variety of boxes while still functioning as it should.

Windows Suffers from its default enabled services

Disable Microsoft Shadow Volume Backup, Fast Indexing, and Ready Boost in Vista. You'll gain a marginal increase in speed where marginal is approximately a 30% increase.

I believe this is where your performance hit resides.

8.10 Intrepid Ibex seems to be the cats meow for Ubuntu and Linux Distributions in general. Rather the goats beller'.

There is not much to tweak here. You could compile the kernel for the processor (Core 2). Reiser3 will give you a huge edge over ext3. But as you said the point was the default install.

Great article.

Disabling write caching on

Disabling write caching on windows will cripple NTFS write speeds for small files and delete operations since metadata updating will result in a lot of small writes.

Yeah, but...

Can Ubuntu run flash full screen?

I love all the Windows

I love all the Windows zealots getting all high and mighty over this. Go crusade somewhere where people care.


I have to agree with a lot of people who commented on this. Most of the 'benchmarks' are quite useless for the average user. Personally, I'd like to see thigns like "firefox start time" and "speed of processing 4gb file from hdd to usb" not 'small file' and large file. Small and large are rather personal I think. To me a small file could mean 1K where for someone else a small file could mean 400MB.. Just a thought.

Windows requires antivirus

Since ya can't run Windows without an antivirus product, if you are the average user mentioned in this benchmark suite, the installation, footprint, and performance times of Windows have to include that, IMHO.

Linux? What is linux? Sounds

Linux? What is linux? Sounds like a cartoon.

you are stupid... you try

you are stupid... you try compare system with 6 yo history and system which born trought 1 year... cool...

Me theory!

Ubuntu definitely supports the customization freaks better than nLiting ofcourse. But the valid points made about the "general user" comfort are important. Last 20 years or so of MSing have made us dependent.

Ya, about the benchmarks, I think the netbook revolution has definitely taken its toll on MS and i hope to see more intiatives from buntu like NBR to get the real performance+aesthetic OS on my machines.

EEEbuntu look and feel

I second awesome penguin. I am one of the NBR users, EEEbuntu.. the customized ubuntu version for Asus EEEpc.. I customized it for my system and its amaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing!! :D

Opensource Photoshop?

Gimp's UI sucks? that is like saying a stickshift sucks because you only know how to drive an automatic.
And if you are so addicted to the crack that is Photoshop try gimpshop, maybe you will like it, I don't use it because I find photoshop's Ui to be rather worthless myself, but hey, I started with the gimp.

Did I hear somebody say windows has more drivers incl legacy?

Victor Szulc, you have no idea in the slightest. Have you ever compared a windows driver in size to a Linux driver for the same piece of hardware?

Light, tight and fully functional is what Linux uses verses hugely over bloated, excessively memory hungry and too often released in a state that Linux users would still call beta software and sometimes even alpha, i.e buggy.

Windows devs code to a time schedule, release it now or else, Linux devs code to their own satisfaction with extensive peer review. There is simply no comparison. It's not Linux's fault that many hardware manufacturers do not give a flying fart, but the Linux coders show beyond a shadow of a doubt they can operate without their help if required, but drivers would come faster if the manufacturers would co-operate, and that day is coming fast. The day will come when the windows die-hards will eat humble pie as Linux outperforms and outpaces everything they thought they knew about computing.

What's a bet most of the die-hards use Google. Do some research on that. How many of the worlds supercomputers run windows? Less than 3% and they can hardly be called a supercomputer, more like a try-hard, what type of systems hold the highest awards and numbers? no need to answer, windows is simpy too b****y worthless and weak to even come close to making the grade.

Now let's see how the benchmarks stack up, Roughly estimated, Linux could easily be 500-600 times faster and there is no doubting that Linux is infinitely more scaleable.

Can you get these results on a non-Linux site?

These tests are very important and one of the ways the Linux community can tell the world that that it's aproper competitive OS.

So could I suggest the authors take the time and trouble to send the article to all those commentators and journalists who think they're talking about computers, but in essence are only mouthpieces for Redmond.

RE: Ubuntu != Linux

Correct, Ubuntu != Linux. But also, let's be honest here: Debian != Linux either. In fact, the only thing == Linux is the kernel. But this is a good comparison report considering that most people (like the original poster) don't seem to know the difference between GNU and Linux. And Ubuntu is the most popular distro in the world -- most likely to be the distro a newbie would try.

Ubuntu is built in Debian and can perform at least as quickly -- if not quicker. If you know your Debian so well, you would be able to sort that out. And I have to throw a cruve ball: my Debian VM boots slower than my old Ubuntu VM. It's just not set up the same.

Ubuntu is far from "bloated". Yes, you can get lighter with a minimal Debian net-install -- but then what do you have? A machine capable of 6 terminal sessions, effectively. Perhaps you want to add the things that EVERYONE else wants: a desktop, office suite, interwebs browser, etc.

I say: GO UBUNTU. Keep it up. There are some nigglies at the moment with really "out-there" hardware, but Ubuntu still has better hardware support than any version of Windows out of the box. The proof is in how it took me 3 days to track down all the drivers necessary to make my laptop run Windows XP (it's an HP Pavillion 9000 range; nothing super-fancy). It took approximately 20 minutes to install Ubuntu on the same machine and everything actually worked, out of the box. Not only that, but wireless networking using WPA2 was WAY easier to set up than in Winblows.

Good OS is useles without killer application

mainstream users do not care about things like these. You have a breakneck speed OS, so what. OpenOffice is crappy (if you are a serious user), GIMP is OK, but far inferior to Photoshop, etc

Missing an OS?

It's too bad WinXP is not in the lineup. It would for sure lag behind all the rest when it comes to patching, but I can't be sure about the rest of the benchmarks. It would be interesting to see it up against both the Linuxes and the new Windowses. For that matter, an older and widely used distro of Linux wouldn't be bad either just to see the improvements.

Fun article. Take it with a grain of salt.

The article was a nice read.
The comments were even nicer to read.

As for me, the fact that this article caught my attention indicated that there's something here that captured my interest.

And I have to thank the writer for that. Now, time to move on with life.

Oh dear....

..... I can't believe that you actually published this!

Surely it would make sense to get technical peer review, as to not emabrass yourself.

Mouse clicks? WTF?
Install size? Irrelivant by todays hardware standards.
DRM? C'mon, do some reading.

nice test

Thanks for this nice test!

The Boot/Shutdown is Bull

Im running:
64bit ubuntu,
On a 2.5ghz, 6mbL2-cache, 7200rpm drive, 4 gb of ram, t-61p laptop AC-powered. Standard install with Compiz-Fusion full blast,

Just under 30secs
about 16 secs

I have done No modification to improve start up time and there are plenty that could cut these numbers in half.
Im running a ton of services, wireless, nm-applet, hdaps, ssh, standard apps on install, bluetooth, many to list.

No way its 68 secs on that hardware for bootup and/or shutdown for Ubuntu 32/64bit.

Business Vs Pleasure

When you get a PC for your kids, do you really think it's for their homework and Instant Messaging ?
There are several things needed for Linux to grab a big slice of market:-
1. Get major software companies to port their games to it, or get a real windows emulator that supports games.
REASON: If I don't want to shell out for windows / office 2007 / photoshop etc, I sure don't want to buy an Xbox. High profile games on the PC is a must for 80% of the home PC market.
2. In order for games software houses to port their games to Linux, they need a standard platform to code to, so this community needs to pick one rather than bickering about the different Linux flavours.
3. Make future realeases of the selected platform backwards compatible for at least 3 years, longer if possible.

Failure to carry out these things will mean that Linux is only good for work, playing games that belong on a card table, and specialist uses such as music.

If the requirement for Linux users to buy a games consol to play games which run on windows continues then we (I'm a linux user) should not expect to win a large share of the home user market.

So that leaves the business market, what's needed for a large share of that?
Large companies value standardisation a great deal, windows is by default the standard to beat. Boot times and open office are not going to cut it with big business if the standard keeps changing at least every six months (like it does with ubuntu). Now I know that windows keeps getting updated and there are always several service packs, but these updates are installed quietly in the background, or through active directory so rolling out an update is very easy on windows. Updates on Ubuntu and other versions of Linux are much more difficult and if something goes wrong, recovering from it is a major hassle involving command line programming. Again Linux needs to be an operating system rather than the current franchise system if it is going to win the market.
Small companies value simplicity of support (they may only have one computer tech, or even outsource their requirements) so they can't afford to have a system that's too specialised. Windows is standard, Linux has countless variants and tweaks to make it work properly, and again we are back to updating simplicity, windows wins every time.

In short Linux doesn't really exist, you have to get a variant, debian, ubuntu, mandrake, suse, red hat, fedora (I use ubuntu and fedora myself).

Put yourself in the position of someone buying 20 PCs and a server to operate a warehouse, no IT tech.
A/ You can get windows, office 2007, sophos security on bog standard PCs, it's what your customers use, it's what your suppliers use, and HP / Dell / Whomever provide you with support for 5 years.
B/ You can get a version of Linux, it get's updated every six months, it's cheaper to install but you have to buy your own support package from a Linux Tech because it's much more technical to fix and their's no centralised support like you get with microsoft products.

Now microsoft is a company, that means there is a contact point, that means there is customer support.
Linux is a nebulous mish mash of thousands of people working in small groups to their own ends.

If it were me I would choose windows every time. Maybe Mac again because there is acompany structure their and I would be their customer. Only if both of those options would not meet my needs would I consider Linux.

I don't love windows, it's full of bugs and annoyances and it costs a fortune, but from a commercial and home user point of view, unless you are, or are willing to become, tech savvy Linux just isn't a choice.

Gaming speed XP vs Linux

The reason Linux would "trumps XP in gaming tests would be you X11 card specific 3D drivers don't support some feature requested by the game. In other words, sure it may be a lot faster because it is not doing the same work :)

Those laptops

I dont worry about benchmark results but if I could get one of those beasts that you ran the benchmarks, that would make me day.

More questions

I think most of the comments have pointed that a fresh install of windows comes with ..... windows. A fresh install of ubuntu comes with a full desktop environment.

Moreover, what you have to do, after fresh install. Updates, drivers, more programs.Ubuntu? 10m max a little bit more if you are new to the OS. Windows???? never less than 2 hours. Not counting Office install and other software that takes forever to install.

And moreover hehe. One moth after fresh install. Boot time for Ubuntu? Pretty much the same? Windows. Oh yeah if not double, almost. And one year after. Please format windows and install again.

Statistical dishonesty

Why bother doing benchmarks in triplicate if you only give us the arithmetic average of the obtained values, but not some form of dispersion measurement.

Dishonesty..? You decide.




та гамно ваша убунта причем недоделаная mandriva лутше

Nice test

Thank you for nice test.
I don't agree those boot times for Ubuntu. It is faster BUT that test was made with your hardware. So it's ok.

You should put price, stability, security...

Those are reasons, that i think when i'm choosing OS.

I've using 15 years Windows, 3 years Linux.
I'm pissed off about one thing: why didn't i change earlier to Linux? Wasted so many years with sh*t..

Microshaft Employees

Wow, all the Microshaft employees and fanbois in here!

I admit, I still use Windows for some tasks, but that is quickly changing. Windows 7 will fial just as bad as Vista did.

RE: What a load of BS...

Victor are you trolling or do you actually believe what you say ?

> Also. I got no idea where you got your stats concerning
> how big Vista is following installation. I just removed
> two Vista folders, one of them was 2 GB, the other one
> was 5 GB.
> Again... What a load of BS...
Where are comparing STOCK installs here right ?
Let's start removing all that documentation in /usr/share/doc that few people read, precached install packages and sparsely used applications from our Ubuntu install. You might have a point claiming that comparing stock installs is mute by the way Microsoft packages and install's Vista but don't start talking pointless crap.

> The reason why Vista takes up more space than a Linux
> installation, is probably because of a phenomenon that
> Linuxusers aren't used to: Drivers for hardware and
> legacy hardware support!
Now this is such a load of crap, it's unbelievable.

You apparently really don't know anything about Linux. Linux support so much hardware both in terms of type of platforms (intel/amd/sparc/mips/cell/etc/etc/etc) as well as devices out of the box it's almost unbelievable that the complete directory of linux modules (of which a good part is drivers) is only 85Mb! (ubuntu with Linux kernel 2.6.27)

Specially in the last couple of years Linux driver support is gone through the roof as far as completeness goes. And legacy support has in my opinion been better in Linux for years now than it was on Windows.

I would love to see you install Vista on an old box with some old obscure network card or other old obscure hardware and have it work out of the box.

So Vista is a bit faster than Ubuntu

Forget about installation times. The ordenairy user don't want to play disk jockey so would probably buy a pre-installed machine. Besides being it a one time process: who cares if it takes two days.
Redmond can definitely improve on the erratic timing of file copy that *is* annoying and a major put-off. But start-time (and for the mobile users) stop time is where Vista is great. And if one would calculate the time spend on fora to get Ubuntu working properly to tweak Vista it probably is the big winner.


Well the bigger install size for windows is caused by the huge amount of preinstalled drivers that are available for all kinds of devices that Ubuntu does not support by default.

DRM checks?

"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."

There are no DRM checks involved in file copying. Please, get a clue.

Re: Graphics

Actually, a lot has been invested in making graphics support under Linux work as efficiently; if not more efficiently than under Windows. With graphics, CAD and visualisation apps running primarily on UNIX workstations in the 1990s; porting to Linux / PC when the hardware reached maturity seemed the next logical step. Combined with the faster filesystems and scaling solutions offered nearly exclusively to Linux based systems (think for instance VirtualGL), the claim that Ubuntu doesn't hold its' own with graphics is truly unfounded.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Username:   Password: