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

Extra software

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 29, 2009 @ 8:22am

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.

Is is noted that Windows in beta mode, well Ubuntu 9.04 was not an RTM either, so that equals thinks out. Doesn't it

Ubuntu just works!

Marcus (not verified) - June 3, 2009 @ 12:08pm

Well, I tried to follow the whole discussion. But I became unpleasant with lots of words written here.
Why should the installation process be compared as normal user experience works with an OS pre-installed? Well, I see it as a way to show, that the traditional prejudice is a lie nowadays, saying that a Linux installation is much more difficult as a Windows one. That's certainly not true.

But against Linux-enthusiast must be said: Linux can only win acceptance and market-share, when it's usable for the average use. Most people go away frustrated when they're said to compile the kernel or to work on the command line. And the question is: why should they? They don't have to on Windows, saying this with a long-term XP experience.

As I'm seeing it: Ubuntu is the only distro, that has at least a minor chance to compete with Windows and MacOS. The more there's a flame war about, what the real and best Linux is, no-one will be impressed. It's time for concentrated action. Let geeks use whatever linux seems best to them. But if you don't want to stay an elitist minority, then you should leave all the beginners the freedom to work with an OS, that simply works. And Ubuntu does (as others but with muss less popularity also do).

I think the most effective hindrance for people to leave Windows for Linux has nothing to do with quality, but with the self-containment of lots of people in the OpenSource scene. They just don't be disturbed. They just don't want users, but they want converts.

I've made the switch from XP to Ubuntu and I'm still impressed how easy and clear everything works. I'm not converted, but convinced. That's it.

@oz123

Awesome Penguin (not verified) - June 3, 2009 @ 6:58pm

@oz123: so you're trying to say that windows 7 has no drivers? I just installed windows 7 rc1 x64 on a p6t deluxe and when i ran the new intel chipset updater, it couldn't find one thing to update!!

all i needed to install was a simple soundmax audio driver, and a graphics driver. When i connect any usb printer i have i have never been asked for a driver. even my wifi dongle was automatically installed. the annoying thing though is that on every boot you have to manually reconnect to a wifi, it never auto connects (tried with 2 different builds *7000 & 7100* and with 2 different dongles: linksys N#, netgear wn111)

There's a huge updated driver database in windows 7 now as there has been in windows since there was 9x.

peace

Not a good benchmarking

kallu (not verified) - June 5, 2009 @ 6:13pm

The copying for the small files is not a good benchmark bcoz linux file system driver caches a lot a windows file system driver. I have tested the same benchmark in usb drive which give indication of light when there is an i/o activity. Liunx cheats in this benchmark, even it shows the copying is complete the i/o activity is shown for a long time. In windows i/o activity of usb drive reflects with the progress bar. Who the hell measures the clicks for one time install.

Total BS article.

Whats the point

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 9, 2009 @ 5:58am

You guys should compare Windows 7 to OS/2 while you're at it.
What is the point of all of this.
If you like Linux (all distros) you are NOT going to like Windows 7 or anything from Microsoft and vice versa.
All this hoopla on how fast Linux is or how secure it is is quite old and never conviced the masses.

Remember BeOS???

Does anyone know of a real unbiased comparison

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 10, 2009 @ 1:08pm

I am looking for a true performance comparison of both as I am trying to decide on the right off the shelf OS for control. They both have their advantages but I would like to see things like thread/process timing and performance comparisons. Anyone know of any unbiased perf comparison benchmarks?

Гонят

Русский (not verified) - June 10, 2009 @ 2:08pm

Мне насрать на эти тесты! Главное, это производительность в "тяжёлых" программах, таких как игры!!!!!!

Windows the Best

Русский (not verified) - June 10, 2009 @ 2:10pm

Windows 7 лучше , чем всякое говно, такое как Mac, Ubuntu.
И чё что 7 больше места на винте тратит? Мне пох, т.к. 1 Tи свободен

alot of these

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 16, 2009 @ 3:50pm

Are quick fixes in windows.Just change the registry so that the boot time is faster, and turn off all the startup programs with in the msconfig menu. Disk space after you install? just delete the programs that come bundled up with the system. Also any of the changes aren't very significant. 2-20 seconds? not that big of a deal, and Ubuntu is never becoming better then windows for the simple fact that its not made for the daily user, but it's more appreciated by computer-savy people. But the ease of use doesn't compare, coming from somebody that used both, and is very familiar with java c++.

LINUX MINT 7.0

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 18, 2009 @ 11:39am

Mint 7.0 (based on Ubuntu) is way faster than any of them, especially the 64 bit version.

Long read, fine article

kneekoo (not verified) - June 18, 2009 @ 11:38pm

I have almost entirely read the first two pages of comments. It started with interesting arguments about the benchmark and it continued with a lot of crap, small fights, contradictions and so on.

Some people understood the purpose of this benchmark. That is actually stated in the introduction but I suspect some people didn't pay too much attention to that, quickly looked and the pretty pictures with their explanations then jumped into commenting. At least that's what would explain quite a few comments.

I find myself installing operating systems very often because it's both my job and IT is my hobby so I also help others in private. Someone said that we cannot compare installation time because Ubuntu only copies some files from an image while Windows does something else - that's decompressing files. I happen to agree with that but on the other hand it's not this benchmark's purpose. It was all about looking on the watch and see how time flies - or to put it in another way, it's like this other's guy wife says that she only interested to see when she turns the light on, without knowing anything about the infrastructure.

The fact is "real-world" really means the majority of people that simply use the computers as tools that help them do their stuff on the internet or writing documents, creating/listening/viewing music, images, movies or whatever else. These people really get things as they are and most of them don't know anything about drivers, caching nor they would have to know something about this technicalities. Most people care about how fast a computer is available for work/play/etc and it's not uncommon that sometimes we hurry and we like our systems to shutdown faster. This stuff does matter in the real world.

Performance or timing are also subjective. The author clearly mentioned the hardware they are using, how Windows can learn to perform better over time AND that this test was about fresh default installs. We should keep in mind that even older systems that the one used in this benchmark can actually perform better but that's because of the available drivers. 2-3 years old computers have heavily optimized drivers for the majority of operating systems, while the newest are nearly always simply performing - but not at full specifications. This is natural but performance differences are also a fact we should consider when talking about different 2-3 year-old systems because they have different drivers - some good, some better, some worse. These differences really make software to behave differently. But again, this benchmark was performed on some system and the author didn't claim his results reflect the actual differences between the operating systems but only their behaviour on Dell's test machine.

For those people that think this is an article to praise Linux or Ubuntu, just so you know, you are wrong. Even if the author didn't state it, to me it's only a comparison between the latest Windows operating systems and the latest two versions of the most discussed Linux distribution these days. It is true, both Windows and Linux can be optimized, but talking from a regular PC user's point of view - who doesn't even think about customizing the operating system, this benchmark is very close to real life - with the exception of the USB tests with caching disabled - which doesn't happen in normal situations - but I think it's obvious why he disabled the caching: for a raw performance test.

Clicks during the setup? Well... this was fun, but I didn't even think someone would pick on the author for that piece of information. He said he did it for the heck of it.

As I see it, the point of this benchmark is seeing how a very popular Linux distribution can be compared with Windows by a set of tasks. It is obviously a short list of tests and people asked for more, but as I have read some comments I agree there is a large difference between a default Linux distro installation and a Windows installation. While Windows comes with a basic set of applications, Linux often has more than a user will use/need.

I would also like to pick on those who said disk space is irrelevant. You are right about the quantity of data compared to today's hard drives but aren't you forgetting about fragmentation? If you're so interested in small details, do you know an EXT file system rarely gets fragmented in such a bad manner that it needs defragmentation? That's why there aren't defrag tools for ext3, ext4 or other newer Linux file systems. I do know a mail server (for example) gets very fragmented but this benchmark was about regular usage of current operating systems.

So there are some people who think Windows is better than Linux regarding drivers. That might be true for very new hardware but that's not at all the Linux kernel developers' fault but simply the hardware manufacturer's. Some manufacturers only make Windows drivers and they only make them for currently supported Windows versions. This is already another story, because I will surely never see Vista or Windows 7 on a Pentium III as a backup machine - as someone before mentioned that. Not only that Windows doesn't include such drivers but it doesn't need them because it cannot run on computers that old. This is obviously one thing Linux is clever enough that it can be used on old machines as well as on new machines. Anyway, the thing is it's a very rare case that a Windows setup won't need any drivers to work on the hardware it's deployed onto, while Linux now has so many drivers - especially for printers - that it can offer alternatives as well.

Actually, another Linux distribution worth testing side by side with the latest Windows versions is Linux Mint 7.0 - based on Ubuntu. Mint is a great Linux distribution that includes many things Windows people spend some time to install. Most Windows users need to install codecs or extra software to be able to see DVDs, Quicktime or RealMedia files and other audio/video formats. Linux Mint's Main Edition has codecs, Flash and Java pre-installed, so after the 10-15 minutes setup you will really be able to do almost everything you want on your system. And this, with less disk space taken (useful to install more applications), less memory usage and all within a splendid user interface that's also easily manageable by novice users.

Regarding other needs, don't blame the author for Ubuntu's chosen packages. There are hundreds of distributions out there. One would only have to browse DistroWatch.com to find the ideal distribution for a certain set of requirements. It's just we should get rid of the stupid mentality that makes the average PC user a mere monkey that doesn't know what planet he's living on. What difference does it make when buying a car? There are many manufacturers, there are hundreds of models, a lot of them have similar functionalities and look and feel but in the end we get to use one or maybe two - or, if we are more demanding, 3 cars or more. It's the exact same thing with operating systems. I'm not PRO Linux or AGAINST Windows but I think it's up to us, the ones who know about what Linux can do right to inform the others because Linux might not be a hardcore gamer's choice but it will be a gold mine for people who only check their e-mail, read web news and print them for some reason. Then there are other people who need a good server but don't have the money for Microsoft software or simply know/find out Linux can do what they need.

Why would we stick to what we're used to? Windows is very good for some things, Linux is very good for other things and as time passes, both operating systems can do the same things very well - just in a different manner if not the same. It's about the choice. A good office system costs around 200 USD, while Windows + Office cost more than 400 USD together. Then if that goes inside a company, "free for home users" products won't be available for Windows and what hurts most is an anti-virus that not only it costs money but also resources. So it's not a strange thing to check operating systems capabilities and compare them to your needs, because a secretary could very well work with a Linux distribution and there are now plenty of those to choose that both look very good and do their job very well without needing any special training for the user. After all, Vista changed many things compared to XP, just as XP changed many things compared to Windows 98.

Even if some won't admit, no matter what operating system you move to, there is a learning curve. It's just some people find it more mentally comforting to know the label says the same thing as it did before - "Windows". Obviously, if it says "Windows", no matter how many times you mumbled because of the latest version's layout of the Control Panel or Office, you will end up using Windows - and you're a Windows user since ages so... you'll just use it and suck it up. Not mentioning the money involved, I think it's immature to overlook alternative operating systems simply because of prejudice and word of mouth. That's why the car sales have test drives - to get the real feel of a car. So you can't just dismiss something you didn't honestly tried as an alternative. It's just not right to ill judge something and think you're making a good decision.

Compared to Windows, most Linux distributions have live CDs so it's so easy to check them up - it only takes good will and an open mind to it. With the economy of our times it is irrational not to look for solutions to lower costs. I only wish This sentence won't bring in wise guys about TCO. The total cost of ownership is something a manager needs to know in order to make a good decision, but it all depends on how honest, realistic and informed IT people are about hardware/software solutions. Why also hardware? Because not being forced to buy Windows & Office licenses will allow you to save a lot of money and even add a little more to buy even better computers.

Not everyone needs a sports car, not everyone needs a wagon, not everyone needs all the add-ons and so on. That's why people should forget about fighting over minor stuff, look at the principles and apply all the good knowledge to their ecosystem. If we don't dare to optimize our lives by simple choices, then we don't deserve to cry about it.

cost and ease of doing things

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 19, 2009 @ 4:34am

I had to rebuild my old PC but as lost my original XP CD so tried to install one from other PC's CD but could not get it registered with Microsoft..
So decided to move to Linux

Being a new migrant to Ubuntu and not being tech savvy, was bit anxious what I have face with new istallation
But guss what ? it was such a smooth saling, .....
It not saved me couple of hundred dollars in buying the new Windows OS but also the unlimited download patches

This old machine is working excellent, much faster than when it was with windows, , smooth and dose exaclty .

Infact its has become the PC of choce with kids and family
and for me as i have not to fix it every other day ...

I wonder why for a home PC we need such a big and complicated operating system like windows anyway..

I honestly believe that it

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 20, 2009 @ 6:30am

I honestly believe that it is a horrible review. It is etremly biast to Linux distros.
The reviewer forgot 1 thing called DEPENDABILITY!!!!
As someone who has Xubuntu 64 JJ, Ubuntu 64, Kubuntu 64, Fedora 10 64 RC, Vista 32 and W7 64 i have a different take.
Xubuntu is the fastest, barely over W7 which is still an RC, but after making it presentable (compiz and AWN) the xServer kills the resources of a GeForce 9600M GT. Also, running progs more than a few days will hogg the heck out of the CPU. Almost everyone using Linux has to tweek the startup every 25-30 starts because it crashes.
Linux distros look slightly better than M$ os’s but in the end of the day they are nothing more than a bunch of programs forced together but never molded. They are far less stable when placed together than M$ os’s.
To conclude I would say that if you want to show off to your friends about the desktop cube or are willing and able to controll your desktop from a command line than go for Linux but if you need to write that set of yearly reports while having a pleasent interaction with your mouse and not worring much if th report will be there once the computer is restarted go for M$ os’s, preferably W7

WHAT A TARD!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 24, 2009 @ 2:28pm

TO QUOTE THIS GOBSHITE

"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."

WHAT A NICE MAN

P.S YOU SIT AT YA STATIONARY PC IN YA BEDROOM MASTERBATING, WE ARE LIBERATED BY OUR LAPTOPS

I'm finding this comments

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 26, 2009 @ 10:14pm

I'm finding this comments section to be quite funny as you have Linux users QQing where windows wins, Windows users QQing where Linux wins, and Ubuntu haters QQing that Ubuntu is not Linux.

First, Ubuntu may not be the best distro, but it is one of the most popular. To be fair, I would like to have seen a comparison to Fedora, SuSE, Gentoo, and a few other distros as well. I would have also like to have seen the XP comparison too since many users have stuck with XP due to Vista's failures.

The install times does seem to be irreverent, however it seems that it was included because of a claim made by Vista and Windows 7 to be easier and faster to install which is why this was tested.

Both Shutdown time and start up time are very interesting. But both of those are subjected to variations through startup software such as an Antivirus as well as other hardware limitations.

Many people have said "I get different results on my computer." The fact is, all hardware is different. You can get 30 computers with the exact same parts and they will give you 30 different results. This is, however, a very high end computer to be testing on.

They choose Richards Benchmarking program because they needed to use the same program that would work with both Windows and Ubuntu. Richards is programed in Python, a OS-neutral language. The only real difference here is Python come on Ubuntu by default. We could try different program if one would prefer, but if your going to criticize, your going to criticize.

While I do have my criticisms in this test, it is a fair test. I don't think I will ever understand the OS wars as every OS has its pluses and minuses. I use a Windows 7, Vista, Ubuntu, Mac OSX, and XP, on a daily basis. I have seen a lot of the ups and downs of each. (Some more then others but hey) But the test was done as fairly as possible and I don't think any amount of complaining will change these results.

WTF!!!!

_Metal_Guitar_ (not verified) - June 27, 2009 @ 11:33pm

"Asterix (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:38am

For games there is a thing called a Game Console. Games does not belong on a desktop unless you want to break and bloat your install."

You can't use linux and then pull the "consoles for gaming" card, people play games on the pc for the sheer customization, and the community of the games, not some kids on xbox live. Sort of similar reasons to why you use linux.

If you want a good all round media/gaming PC, you go with windows. If you want a super fast boot times, go with linux.

It's great fun - and I think

Ben2talk (not verified) - June 28, 2009 @ 11:23am

It's great fun - and I think it's amazing the way everyone complains 'it's only the Beta of windows 7'

The fact is that linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular, have made such an incredible rate of progress lately, that unless Windows 7 is ready to upgrade to Windows 8 within the next 6 monthly cycle, it will be left behind.

My startup time now is around 25 seconds, using ext4, and my shutdown time is around 5 to 10 seconds. Rumours are afoot that the boot time is to be hacked down to close on 10 seconds (I'd be extremely happy with 15 to 20).

Compare this snapshot to one year ago....

Windows - installed
Ubuntu - shit no screen, crap no wireless.

Whilst everyone who could hack ubuntu was saying how amazing it was, there were thousands trying it and not being able to get it to do anything. Now it's really looking to me like a viable option (ignoring cost - I don't think anyone thinks that $100 on the price of a computer is important - divide that by 5 years or so... it's nothing)

Hi

MySelf (not verified) - June 29, 2009 @ 1:48am

You are not normal. 7 is better than Vista and Vista i better than Ununtu. Why do not try with game or other 3d to see why Ubuntu is not good? Make that test with game.

Face it free or overpriced.

Bibble (not verified) - July 3, 2009 @ 8:39am

I use Windows, OSX and Ubuntu. I love Ubuntu the most for all my online and work needs.

I only use my mac for music and my Windows is just there so I can keep up to date on fixing other peoples windows problems.

I do play games on windows but I don't even dare to get online with it. From the time a normal person opens there windows system's box there computer degrades and needs constant work yeah it keeps me in a job but I would much rather work on a Linux based OS any day then Microsoft.

Ubuntu has seemed to get faster and faster over time because of updates, yeah some stuff can be hard to install on Ubuntu but when you compare that to trying to fix the countless windows problems that you have to fix all the time installing something like a strange video card driver on Ubuntu seems easy.

I don't miss BSOD's or internet problems I set Ubuntu up once and its good to go updates take care of the rest. If you cant live without the games then for god sake partition Ubuntu cause it works better for your normal computer needs. and its free!

Plus I get sick of looking at the same theme all the time yeah Ubuntu is ugly but you can change that there are new themes posted all over the net. With a little work on it you can put windows to shame, with windows your stuck with what they give you. I use to mod Windows XP till they started doing updates that messed it all up. With Ubuntu thats not a problem.

Three years on Ubuntu and not one problem tell me one person that can say that about windows. I set up my first Ubuntu machine for my Mom cause windows kept pooping out on her now shes been problem free for years.

It's not just about benchmarks its about having something you don't have to worry about and Ubuntu does that like a Mac but also has the upgrade ability of a PC. There is no reason not to use it.

That's my two cents.

Slanted review (if you can call it that)

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 3, 2009 @ 9:57pm

So Windows 7 is really close to the heaven Linux is?
15% longer install time. That 8 minutes can be shaved off with a USB key install.

Also 32 seconds is the average boot time for Windows 7.
google for it.

Ubuntu is the king. :D

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 5, 2009 @ 3:26pm

Ubuntu is the king. :D

Vista is a bloated pig

Jedimaster007 (not verified) - July 5, 2009 @ 11:20pm

I have recently switched to Ubuntu from Vista.Ubuntu 9.04 makes a mockery of Vista. If vista was an animal it would be an overweight bloated pig with the brains of a coat hanger. Long Live Linux !!!

And all you micro$$$$ fanboys can keep paying Bills retirement fund.

PC users wants out!

Bob (not verified) - July 10, 2009 @ 10:20pm

Really wish Linux still didn't need a geek hat to make more advanced things work easily. I have so many legacy windows apps that are essential for my day to day work, that I can't afford the grief time to fiddle with dual monitor script files, dual boot setups to run top tier mainstream web design programs and interact with existing Windows networks.

XP will have to do for me until Macs get cheaper or Linux can run windows software **easily** out of the box.

Wow

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 11, 2009 @ 8:11am

I get the feeling more people are interested in bashing the author and trying to show off their 'technical expertise' rather than reading about some preliminary results...

Very interesting article

yogesh malik (not verified) - July 14, 2009 @ 11:13am

This was a very good read, i have another reason to feel proud of my Ubuntu.

One more test

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 16, 2009 @ 10:52pm

Call it, the OS Entropy Test.

Let the average teenager use each OS for six months of OS updates (maybe sometimes), AV updates (maybe sometimes), freeware downloads, indiscriminate browsing, Facebook, mp3 downloads, incorrect shutdowns and general use and abuse and rerun the benchmarks. And add browser start and pageload tests as well. In my experience, the Win times will be off the charts.

Which is why I switched to Linux.

All benchmarks compromised.

gbowles (not verified) - July 17, 2009 @ 10:48pm

How well does a windows machine run after crutch apps like anti-virus / spyware are installed? The improvements to installation on behalf of MS will be much appreciated by those who have to redo it to the same machine over and over again. A linux install could take all night for all I care, because if done right it's done once.

Well Done

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 18, 2009 @ 8:14pm

IT's very easy do this or that but doing thing is what count. WELL DONE MAN and keep doing this benchmarking

I'm a Microsoft guy, but

Anonymous Penguin - July 18, 2009 @ 9:50pm

I'm a Microsoft guy, but well done on this Benchmark. Very good job.

Software Availability

Max ID (not verified) - July 21, 2009 @ 7:19pm

As a windows user I should say that Linux lacks a bunch of important products from Autodesk, Adobe, ABBYY and so on. Yeah it includes office suite, VoIP, mail client, some picture editing tools and some more... You may mention that all this soft is free. Yeah it is free... But look, you can install OpenOffice, Skype, NetBeans, Thunderbird, any browser, Gimp,
mplayer, ffdshow (all codecs you'd ever need) and it will be also completely free... What's more, when you download an installation package, you can be sure that it will fit your system completely. But with Linux, its another story. A painless installation can only be done via repository, but when downloading from an independent resource, then ouch..
# tar -zxf xxx.tbz
# cd xxx
# ./configure && make install clean
..........
There is no guarantee that the package will install correctly, you have to edit configuration files, enter installation paths, manually compile and link modules. And after that, you'll be provided with little documentation (I mean desktop programs of course), in most cases its a description and a short manual (how-to for example).
Oh, I've forgotten the most important :) Kernel patches! Windows downloads them automatically in background and after reboot I have absolutely no problems. But when I used Ubuntu Hardy, I installed the latest patches via Synaptic and what did I see after reboot? Gnome didn't started at all! Of course somebody'll say I must have straight hands and so on... I don't want an operating system itself, I want to use applications it supports... I won't talk about driver support, because Linux drivers manufacturers provide are crap when comparing to their performance in windows. So my conclusion: Want speed, beauty, reliability - then Mac OS is for you. Want good server - *BSD is for you. Want best support of ALL programs(opensource too) - then windows is for you. Want pain in neck and troubleshooting all the time - then Linux is for you... :)))))

Real world is far more compelling

CSSteve (not verified) - July 24, 2009 @ 2:07pm

I have used W7 for a few months now and I have had Ubuntu on a laptop for about the same period of time. All I can tell you is that the Ubuntu is just plain faster in a big way. The efficiency and stability of 8.10 is tremendous. Conversely, I had a horrendous meltdown when attempting to upgrade to 9.04. So, in a year this conversation could be completely different as Jaunty could easily be Ubuntu's Vista.

1- For the guys talking

costa200 (not verified) - July 26, 2009 @ 10:30am

1- For the guys talking about how you get free applications with linux and that makes it more "complete" after install, i must say you should really expect it to be complete because those are probably the only applications you will ever run on that box. What you're failling to see is that the bloat in windows machines is necessary in order to gain usability power.

2- then these sort of critics: "Let the average teenager use each OS for six months of OS updates (maybe sometimes), AV updates (maybe sometimes), freeware downloads, indiscriminate browsing, Facebook, mp3 downloads, incorrect shutdowns and general use and abuse and rerun the benchmarks. "

Alright, you're absolutely on. After six months the average teen will have the windows machine to a craw, because he is using it to do what he wants to use it for. On the contrary the linux box will be flawless because he won't be able to do squat in it unless you're there teaching him to have a good time with command lines just to install a lame version of a software that is a maimed ripped off copy of the real software.

3- "As a windows user I should say that Linux lacks a bunch of important products from Autodesk, Adobe, ABBYY and so on. Yeah it includes office suite, VoIP, mail client, some picture editing tools and some more... You may mention that all this soft is free. Yeah it is free... But look, you can install OpenOffice, Skype, NetBeans, Thunderbird, any browser, Gimp,
mplayer, ffdshow (all codecs you'd ever need) and it will be also completely free... What's more, when you download an installation package, you can be sure that it will fit your system completely. But with Linux, its another story. A painless installation can only be done via repository, but when downloading from an independent resource, then ouch..
# tar -zxf xxx.tbz
# cd xxx
# ./configure && make install clean"

Exactly... Almost everything is doable in a linux box, if you're set to have the pain of doing it. At this moment linux users want the opperative system per se, not the applications they should be wanting. Linux is, at desktop level (not server) a freakin hobbie, not an efficient OS. And if we are talking about home users you can forget about it.

After 6 months we have to reinstall that teen computer?! Yeah, that's a pain... But on the other hand, the countless hours you would have spent just trying to get a simple teen game to work for him will cover that many times over.

Boot times

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 26, 2009 @ 9:25pm

The faster it boots, the faster you get to troll on anti-Windows forums.

Well done.

MANDRIVA

Anonymous Penguin # 9 (not verified) - July 30, 2009 @ 11:46am

Hi I would like to see this benchmark against Mandriva Linux which I have used for many years and find incredibly stable and zippy.

I have used vista, xp, and

Anon mouse Penguin (not verified) - July 30, 2009 @ 8:53pm

I have used vista, xp, and ubuntu. I was scared at first to make the jump from windows to ubuntu but after I did I was so happy and their are a ton FREE programs that is one plus I did not think of when I was a primary windows user I will be a big linux fan for the rest of my life windows is still good but I perfer ubuntu

I would recommend...

Skan (not verified) - August 3, 2009 @ 5:32am

Ubuntu to everyone! i think that it is a lot better than vista and will save you many a headache as you wait for things to load on windows. Although i have not tried windows 7, i have a feeling that it will be the same way as vista after you use it for a while; slow and annoying.
Ubuntu Rocks!

I loled at that

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 3, 2009 @ 4:25pm

ok saying that changing to linux will save you headaches is the joke of the day...

An amazing comparision,

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 5, 2009 @ 4:02pm

An amazing comparision, cleared lotsa doubts...
Thanks guys

obviously its going to be biased

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 6, 2009 @ 7:05am

its a website for linux.. god forbid they'd put an article on anything other than pro linux material
ffs, gimp is no where near photoshop, that free 3d modelling software is nothing next to 3ds max, and GTA4. linux fanns been milking these posts for months

Ummmm, How Much for Hibernation?!?

Anonymous Peacock (not verified) - August 7, 2009 @ 4:49pm

How is it that Winblows needs 5-6 GB more than Ubuntu Jaunty when the PC has less than 5-6 GB of ram? That is an incessant amount of space for something not even in use! Plus, hibernation doesn't even work well in Vista... Don't know about Win7. For the killer blow to that theory, My linux box fits it in to the correct amount and leaves ONLY THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OPEN.

I THINK UBUNTU IS BETTER！

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 16, 2009 @ 4:25pm

From now on,I will discard windows instead of Linux(Ubuntu 9.04),for what is known to all of us.

What about stability

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 19, 2009 @ 2:36am

To be honest, I would not be interested in how many clicks it takes to set up each OS.
Stability and ease of use is much more important. I bought Vista 18 or so months ago and its been nothing but trouble since. First simply opening files was a huge issue, waiting up to 1 minute for each file to open. I was not the only person with this problem, just spend some time crawling through the forums out there detailing all the niche problems.
Right now I have had enough, as I am having problems on a daily basis with simple programs like media player and iTunes crashing, not opening/responding etc etc etc.
Its for this reason I am interested in ubuntu, if that aint more stable I will just have to switch to Apple.

And BTW, there is no chance in hell I am forking out any money for Windows 7, this should be a free upgrade for all the poor vista users who have mostly had nothing but torture with this piece of crap software.

So, try a stability test next time, see the frequency of application issues. It sounds like you are really smart, so this should not be an issue or?

Slackware vs. Debian vs. Ubuntu

george314 (not verified) - August 19, 2009 @ 7:14pm

I would like to see a similar comparison between Slackware Debian and Ubuntu. Slackware and Debian users often claim their systems are faster than the "bloated" Ubuntu. However I haven't been able to find a comparison test like this one that could substantiate their claims. Although Slackware and Debian may be lighter and snappyer than Ubuntu I would imagine this difference to be small.

Somewhat late in the day but I figured I'd mention...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - August 20, 2009 @ 4:25am

Games. Yeah we know, Linux doesn't have many high-end commercial releases. But for the few that do get released, have you ever noticed the performance?

Basically, Linux rocks as a gaming platform. I can play Unreal Tournament 2004 on this crappy old laptop without a problem, whereas in Windows XP or Vista you can guarantee I'd have to lower number of bots/graphics detail.

Now take a look at EVE Online. Not sure if they still support Linux, but they certainly did for the Trinity release via the Cider compatibility layer. Yes, that's right, EVE Online effectively runs in a commercial version of WINE.. AND REQUIRES LESS HARDWARE TO DO IT.

Why are there not more games companies than just Epic and ID Software making Linux games? It's not like there's a lack of customers when Linux has a far higher installed user base than, say, your average games console. Hell, you can even do it games-console style and include the distribution on the game disk itself. Insert DVD, reboot machine, play game. What's hard about that?

Like Wow?

Foolz (not verified) - August 21, 2009 @ 3:09am

the boot time is like a Joke, Taking more than a min to boot? with like i7? even you take the 20sec out from the Dell part, it is still like 50sec for those system to boot. I have a 6 years old laptop which is like DDR2 and pentium M 1.2GHz, and a relative old HDD. and it can boot in like 17sec, with ubuntu 9.10 using ext4. and that is include the 3sec select kernel grub screen. That is OUT of BOX too. I have done nothing to the system to make it boot faster. Evern with ext3. the system boot in like 31 sec. which is still way less than 50sec.

Benchmarking pre-release software?

TGM (not verified) - August 21, 2009 @ 11:09am

If you are benchmarking Windows 7, you should at least include Ubuntu's 9.10 alpha to see what Windows 7 will be up against at release.

a scientific mind...

capricornus (not verified) - August 22, 2009 @ 6:24pm

...compares everything, not only time-to-install (what?), mouse clicks or transfer time.
First, installing from a CD or DVD is not the same with Win7 and Buntu904. With Win7, I got nothing but a bare situation that takes a lot of space and gives litle to do with. With buntu904 I got most things a human needs.
Second, booting the OS'es is not to be measured by showing a GUI. With Win7, I got nothing but nothing. After installing eg Antivirus, the pc needs to start it, update it, and announcing that the pc is ready. That takes time.
Last but not least, in a household of 4 with each member having a pc and a laptop/netbook, Win7 costs me a leg (weel, 8x a digit), and buntu904, nothing. And with buntu904, I'm offered a library full of free and well working software. With Win7, I only can enrich myself by continu paying for thit-and-that.

Install speed? Totally wrong!

Marco Barreto (not verified) - August 27, 2009 @ 1:29pm

I totally disagree with that graph! Windows clean install means windows + internet explorer. Ubuntu clean install means SO + Office suite + GIMP + etc and so on. Not fair

OMG Linux people are really reaching

Anonymous Penguin looking through a window (not verified) - August 31, 2009 @ 1:09pm

Minesweeper and note pad are parts of the new windows experience along with Superfetch (One of the big complaints unix people have had about windows was taken away with this one). plus a ton of really slick stuff like media player 11 with support for nearly every format on the planet, Movie maker is pretty awesome as well. The .net framework will work on linux and the development tools are free. No other free dev language can even come close to the IDE provided with this microsofts dev language. and to try and complain and say Java is better is idiocy, The guy who wrote Java works for microsoft now and helped write the C# language. Linux people are still living in the win 95 era and need to crawl out of their caves and see the light. I support both Linux and Windows 2008 servers and can say from experience that no matter how much faster the linux box boots. setting up and configuring services on the windows machine takes a small percentage of the time that the linux box does.

I appreciate the testing!

Mina (not verified) - September 4, 2009 @ 7:00am

Thank you for the benchmark testing. It was interesting to read, including the "for the heck of it" ones.

I'm disappointed, though, that they were all tested on multi-core systems. I will always stick to single-core and with me on a fixed income, I can't afford these outrageously huge 500 GB hard drives. I still have my 80 GB one. It has WinXP, Ubuntu, and I've used Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux on it. In time, I'm going to try other small OSes on it that are GUI'd (I hate command lines). I haven't yet tried Andlinux but I've heard good things about it. I also like the Wubi versions of various Linux.

Thank you, again, for your article. You did a lot of work to try to make it on equal footing for each. That's to be applauded. There's no such thing as a perfect test.

Try Ubuntu 9.04 latest release

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 6, 2009 @ 9:27am

Its much faster especially for the bootup and install time than 8.10. In fact there was a saying in Microsoft when I worked over there, "Ubuntu is installed faster than boot up of XP" (which I don't know why but it really sucked over there)

However, XP rocks in the

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 6, 2009 @ 9:28am

However, XP rocks in the sense that I can play all my games over there... :) Ubuntu, no matter how hard it tries, doesn't give me that satisfaction..

Benchmarking

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 7, 2009 @ 3:38pm

Although I use Ubuntu 9.04 daily, I must admit Win 7 Ultimate Build 7100 RC is quite nice. From switch on to a fully loaded desktop, it's 35 seconds on my machine - an Intel E5300, Nvidia 9600GT, 2GB memory, and 500GB 7,200RPM Seagate HD - no fancy specs at all. So far, I'm impressed with Win 7 - much improved over Vista.

UBUNTU VS. WINDOWS

LATINRASCAL (not verified) - September 11, 2009 @ 2:55am

GREAT WORK FOR A HONEST ATTEMPT TO A FAIR COMPARISON. MY COMMENT IS DIRECTED TO ALL THOSE WINDOWS USERS WHO ARE STILL WAITING TO JOIN THE LINUX REVOLUTION. ONCE YOU GET PAST THE LEARNING CURVE... YOU WILL REALIZE HOW EFFICIENT AND INEXPENSIVE IT IS TO OWN AND MANAGE YOUR LINUX BOX.

IN TODAY'S ECONOMY THE NEED TO STREAMLINE COSTS TO STAY COMPETITIVE... WELL IS A NO BRAINER. THE FACT THAT THE UBUNTU COMMUNITY IS WORKING HARD EVERY DAY TO PUT TOGETHER AN OS THAT CAN OUT PERFORM THE COMPETITION JUST PROVES THAT OPEN SOURCE WORKS WELL.

I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN USING UBUNTU 9.04 FOR ABOUT 6 WEEKS AND THE INSTALLATION WAS VERY SIMPLE. WAS ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING MYSELF BY SIMPLY READING UP ON THE WELL WRITTEN FORUMS AND USER BASED SITES THAT SHARE INFORMATION. MY BOX IS A COMPAQ PROSARIO V2615 AND SHE HAS NEVER WORKED BETTER.

Don't know about most of the

Bealer (not verified) - September 11, 2009 @ 10:51pm

Don't know about most of the tests, but in terms of boot time Windows 7 x64 is a fair bit faster than Ubuntu 9.04 x64 on my Dell XPS M1330.

The biggest difference which wasn't included is in battery life of laptops, which is about as real world as you can get.

Ubuntu won't last more than 1 hour 50mins max. Whereas Windows 7 clocks up over 2 hours 30mins.

I'm still sticking with Linux. Would struggle to switch back to Windows. Having said that I develop in Windows (.Net) so still use Windows as far as that is concerned.

Definitely impressed by Windows 7 though. They've redeemed themselves after Vista.

Just an average user.

You know who I am (not verified) - September 15, 2009 @ 2:15am

I know several IT professionals, many weekend techs, and people who know just enough to get themselves into trouble. I myself, though not a smarty pants like the rest of you geniuses, can hold my own. I work on systems for friends, family, and for my company on a regular basis, and of the computer users I help and know, none of them are capable of using any Linux distro. I know I'm surrounded by idiots, but these idiots are the majority of the worlds population. They have used Window$ for so long that they don't know any better. They have no clue how to or even any interest in learning how to use any other operating system. Of my friends who do use Linux most of them would never change, and I see no reason for them to. I know plenty of Windows users who tried to change to Ubuntu and other various Linux distributions, but switched back shortly after because they couldn't figure it out. Windows is easy to use and for the most part stable. Of the people I know and help, they don't care about install time or number of clicks during the install. They just want to be able to turn it on and have it work. It is unfortunate for them that Windows is so faulty, but they live with it because it is what they know and they have no desire to learn anything new. They don't have time in their worlds for that. For now I will continue to help them deal with what came loaded on their system because like the rest of you, I am a nice person. I have a hard time seeing people stuck in the dark ages and like you I try to help other out the best I can, Linux or not.

Thanks for the time you spent on the research. I didn't find it valuable but I can tell you put some time and effort into proving your point.

Install Media?

Needs Saying (not verified) - September 18, 2009 @ 12:01pm

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. - FROM A CD

1364 seconds to install 11.9GB on Windows64 = 114.62 seconds per GB. FROM A DVD (Quicker Read Speed)

DOH!

Ubuntu

Ratko (not verified) - September 19, 2009 @ 3:17am

I used to use Xp for looooong and get in habit to to format HD on monthly basic to keep system stable. After one unrecoverable crash I am installed Linux to get my files back,and I am never went back. For some time I had dual boot and I am noticed that even kids preferred Linux. Last 2 years we are "FAT free" and we never had any stability problems.
Most of Window$ games are play just as good as on XP and some even better by using latest version of Wine of WineHQ repository.
Long live Linux.

Benchmarks

Humar (not verified) - September 23, 2009 @ 2:58am

@Jason Cartwright
1393sec = 23min ( Windows installation time on a i7 )
in my case ubuntu installs in 10min on an old 512mb machine, its worth mentioning tough installation is done from an USB ( higher read speeds than a CD )

Installation time, boot up & shutdown speeds, are important anyone qualifying them as irrelevant is silly.

I'LL SWITCH TO WINDOWS

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 2, 2009 @ 3:32am

I've been using Ubuntu as the sole system since four years. I've been from upgrade to upgrade.I've been happy up to Ibex.
Now my hardwares are upgraded , so are my needs.Ubumtu is not anymore an answer.I don't want to spend my time to find a driver that does not exist under linux because linux is trailing behind hardware support and worry only about new distro and new boot system (grub 2 is very,very bad).Mythtv is the right name, just a myth and useless (except if you have a very old and obsolete tuner card. RDV works but forget about vnc (after ibex).I don't care if ubuntu boot faster than windows, I just want to use the full potential of my computers. This is not possible with the latest ubuntu and linux releases (I've tried Fedora 11).
Ubuntu and subsequently linux work good if you have an old computer and old hardwares, and don't with the newest one.

# of clicks during installation relevant?

Linux and Windows user (not verified) - October 3, 2009 @ 1:52am

won't the number of clicks impact the overall install time since it requires the user to read the install choices, move the mouse, and click?

Linux sucks

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 3, 2009 @ 8:36pm

Linux tards never take into account that Windows Works, and they have Xorg, which is the biggest piece of crap in existence. Linuz users, enjoy Window tear, while Windows users don't have to deal with that bullshit. also Windows users can enjoy hardware support, and software support not some half ass drivers made by the linux community. this benchmark is epic fail.

Prefetching... Yes Linux Do That!

GeBoot (not verified) - October 5, 2009 @ 1:01am

For GNU/Linux have a nice pice of program:-) THE PRELOAD, Build by RED HAT tiny, but powerfull, be careful speed up
like the wind.

Windows is fast than this benchmark

Anonymous Windows (not verified) - October 5, 2009 @ 5:02am

Yes Ubuntu start faster and is easy to install, copy files from ext2 to ntfs really slow when I have a troughput of 45 mbs on windows in ubuntu only 25 mbs, the installation time suck in the os because I need to download everything on ubuntu to work fine (included samba) so in windows you need to download drivers in ubuntu too.

A working OS

Jamie Hill (not verified) - October 10, 2009 @ 3:01pm

I bought a refurbished Toshiba in the UK which came with windows vista. I must say that it really ran very poorly for the specification of the machine. On the first boot it blue-screened. After finally getting the OS to load and ask for my details etc. there was constant disk activity. It seemed like a fast OS just trying to get out. The back up DVD program didn't work and just produced two coasters out of my brand new DVDs. The warranty registration program crashed etc - piece of junk.

I had a choice, either return the machine and wait for weeks for a replacement, or bite the bullet and install ubuntu. I have some experience with linux distros and the most frustrating thing is usually hardware related.

Anyway, about twenty minutes later, I had a fully functional laptop with all the hardware working.

I have to admit, I was very surprised about how easy, unobtrusive, non-threatening and sophisticated the ubuntu installation was.

These guys have put a great deal of work into this and it blows anything from Microsoft out of the water.

You forgot to mention how

NoOps (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:23am

You forgot to mention how many more programs run in windows vs linux, which is realy all that matters right?

How many programs are

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:38am

How many programs are written for linux vs windows? And why did you neglect to use windows XP in your tests? I bet XP would of smoked them all.

You're a HUGE douche.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 2:53pm

This is the lamest benchmark I have ever ever seen. I knew this was going to be a horrible article around the point where you said 'and two 500gb of hard drives.' Making no mention to the speed of the hard drives or any other specifics. What if they were 4200rpm notebook sloths or 10,000rpm Raptors?

Everyone else has already hit on everything. DRM?!? Mouse clicks? Seriously?

You guys suck!

/constructive criticism

compatibillity

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 21, 2009 @ 4:14am

I had a really hard time with linux because alot of software, games and hardware were not compatible

Linux

Nathan Ampong-Terchie (not verified) - October 22, 2009 @ 1:27pm

Pls I am intrested in the linux environment and will like to learn more,so can you pls send me a book on linux to help me improve on the linux field.I a student in Pentecost University College in Ghana and my e-mail is bignatito@yahoo.com. thank you.

...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 22, 2009 @ 3:51pm

With Windows XP I can do much more than word processing. I can find free software to do nearly everything else, including advanced video and image editing. Why would I need Linux again?

@ubuntu 8.10

Linoob (not verified) - October 22, 2009 @ 4:51pm

are you kidding try 9.10 and u'll see that its far better than windows 7 . 7 is not even close...!!!

a user perspective

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 26, 2009 @ 6:53am

ok as a real user here, after install and start up the machine, how long it will take fore an average graphic design user in the real world like me to install photoshop cs4 on linux machine?

on windows7 i took me like 30 and some minutes, that was included making a cup of coffee.

on ubuntu.....

What about Virus / Spyware Checking...

Wonderbird (not verified) - October 26, 2009 @ 3:05pm

You would have to be NUTS to run Windows without anti-virus software on it... I would like to see how big of an effect that has on the various benchmarks...
Granted it might be hard to keep Windows fans from crying foul but to me that is more of a "real world" comparison that I would find useful... (Too late to influence my "decision" since I gave up on waiting for Windows to grow up years ago but it is good to see that people stuck in Windows land have a choice besides XP /Vista now.)
Another comparison I would like to see is benchmarks of virtualization using Windows as a host vs using Linux as a host...
Why do you have to leave out the space between the two words in the "captcha" in order to post a comment?

ext4 File System is Default in Ubuntu 9.10

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 26, 2009 @ 3:53pm

WRONG.

ext4, with the needed patches, was an option in Ubuntu 9.04 and is rock solid and fast.

in Ubuntu 9.10, due out at the end of October, ext4 is the default file system.

Ubuntu Patches

GoLoGo - October 27, 2009 @ 9:36pm

The default installation of Ubuntu requires around 300 patches to be installed as soon as you get/got a working internet connection, which can be time consuming.

Gentoo takes 3 years to install, even with the manual memorized.

Windows is good for people who:
- Do not like to have control over there computer and what it is doing at all times.
- require software like Adobe Products collection, Reason, Cubase, Sonar, Etc..
- Are Lazy
- Are Lazy Gamers
- The List can go on.

I have a separate system for the software that is nearly impossible to get working on Linux. I could care less about the performance of Windows. It is still Windows.

Why did you compare to Ubuntu?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 28, 2009 @ 8:33am

I'm also wondering why Ubuntu? I've used it for a bit, it is very user friendly but doesn't compare in nothing to other very known distro's I have used when talking about performance. I've used Debian 5, LinuxMint, DreamLinux and am now a Slackware adept to the bone. If you compare Windows 7 / Vista to Slackware 13, Mickeysoft is out the door with losses all over the place.

Fucking fanboys

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 29, 2009 @ 10:22am

Fucking fan boys, sheesh... you people make me sick.

So far all OS's have their draw backs... So far here is what they are.

Windows: $$ (If you know how to use it you don't have the problems everyone else does. Spyware, instability, ect..)

Linux Distro - Any: Games (Most of the people who use it know what the fuck their doing.. unlike windows.)

Mac: Games (Most of the people who use mac are gay.. this is like coming out of the fucking closet or something..)

Right now we should all be hating on DirectX...
I love WINE!

Sleepy waitin' 4 the Win7 machine operates.

TuxDrake (not verified) - October 29, 2009 @ 2:49pm

Yawn .... yawn .... have u guys finish talking (trashing)? Sorry, did I miss something? My company spending a lot of money buying genuine copy of Win7 and all the bloated software. And I have time to sleep about half the 12 hours everyday. Thanks Steve Balmer.
The reason why Window$ so popular waz becoz the pirated Window$ developer and user. :D Face it, plain vanilla genuine Window$ copy is lack of option. The majority window$ user using dual boot or linux livecd. Average user was scared using Linux because the window$ techies and elitist ubuntu community says "U can't do this, u can't do that. If I can't, u can't to 2." Bullshit!

4 Window$ only user out there I have 2 question 4 u:
1. Where do u put the windows if u live without walls? (Keep coming virus, spyware, trojan horse and adware. I luv u all. :D :D :D)
2. If Window$ was the best OS in the universe, then why da hell Mr. William "Bill" Gates leaves M$?

And 4 the Ubuntu elitist here's the question:
1. Should we do RTFM everytime we run in to problems?
2. Is Ubuntu=the only Linux in the universe?

You don't have answer, if u don't want 2. But the question will remain here and in your head 4ever. :D :D :D :D :D

How much is your time worth?

Craig (not verified) - October 30, 2009 @ 9:56pm

I too have been comparing Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 9.04 and now 9.10. I like the free Ubuntu and it does a good job. I'm writing this via my new Ubuntu 9.10 on my IBM T21 laptop. It did a good job of loading all drivers but some are very buggy. Audio flakey, I have to keep manually adjusting the volume higher or lower to get audio to play. The graphics are much slower than on the same computer with factory IBM windows 2000. I've installed Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 on this and other higher end systems and had similar results as far as doing a good job finding hardware but have a lot of buggy issues with video on ATI cards (Radeon x700 pro and Radeon HD 3450) with the fglrx drivers). Basically, I'm going back to good old Windows 2000 on the T21 and purchased a few Ultimate copies of Windows 7 to put on the other PC's. One thing you should mention in the next article is that with Windows 7 I didn't need to add any video or sound driver modifications or install codecs to playback encrypted DVDs or .mp4,mp3,Divx,Xvid. Everything just works and after all the time invested in Ubuntu trying to get these basics properly working (several nights of seeing the sun rise) I'm sticking with Windows 7 but keeping the dual boot to Ubuntu because I can still tolerate a little pain while keeping hopeful it will eventually work as it should.
Tip: In Ubuntu 9.10 after VLC is installed I still needed to install:
sudo apt-get install libdvdread4
and
sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread4/install-css.sh

Handbrake GUI is broken in 9.10..still working on it.

Waiting for karmic turn.....

Tarun (not verified) - November 1, 2009 @ 7:19am

Very helpful and encouraging results but i would love to see karmic benchmark along also..

Fake

Anonymous (not verified) - November 2, 2009 @ 3:04am

Fake

Linux sucks

I'm not trolling (not verified) - November 3, 2009 @ 3:22pm

Seriously. Windows Vista sucks too, but all of you people out there that get sooo upset when anyone even remotely downplays Linux - get over it! I use both on a daily basis, and I can tell you that I have way more trouble getting stuff to run CORRECTLY under Linux than I do Windows.

And don't get me started on the so-called user community. From my experience, all "serious" Linux users have a chip on their shoulder the size of a Buick. I can't tell you how many times I've read "Don't do this unless you know what you're doing", which is just a euphamism for "I'm smarter than you are because I play with Linux all day instead of having a life". Heck, if I "knew what I was doing", I wouldn't have to read your stupid how-to article.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux too, and use it on five of my computers. But stop getting upset when someone suggests that Linux may not be the answer to all of mankind's problems. If you want to devote half of your life learning about make, gcc, RPMs, and so forth, then Linux is for you. But yes, there are folks with other things in life to do.

RE: Linux sucks

Punisher (not verified) - November 5, 2009 @ 2:45am

What were trying to do here is to present facts/ideas to people so that they can make better choices. Thats the beauty of this.. people can present their ideas on one thing and other people can disprove it. I know this article sounds 'nerdy' for you but at least it done something and that is to inform people that there is an alternative choice.An alternative choice that is free and is in par with windows.

It is just disappointing that people like you shutdown this type of conversation simply because you think they should be doing other things in life. Don't forget that these the same people that "I'm smarter than you are because I play with Linux all day instead of having a life" made contributions so that we can enjoy a free alternative (and guess what, they dont get paid). Its just lame that you fail to appreciate these peoples effort to improve our open-source community. In the end of the day at least these people did something to improve mankind (in softwares at least). How bout you what have you done?

PS: dont get upset im only presenting my ideas

Linux user here but....

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - November 6, 2009 @ 11:49am

I admit it... I am a Linux user, and I don't think I will ever switch back to Windows. I have my reasons: 3D rendering is at least 20% faster under Linux, and software development is much nicer in the Linux environment. However, the attitudes of the Linux users here are just notorious (yes, I know, there were some hard hits on us too, but just cool down a bit). Rather than completely shutting down others because of their opinion on an operating system (which I may add, seems a bit pathetic), I think it may be more worthwhile to encourage the Windows users to become fellow Linux users. I have heard much complaint of BSD users within the Linux community, however I think the way this conversation has been going is much worse than the average BSD user. For those who really think that Linux is the better OS, I think it is more important that we try to demonstrate why, and this includes showing the power of the Linux community,

Now for my argument :)
I personally use Linux because of its superior rendering speeds, and also because it is less prone to becoming bloated. I used to run Windows operating systems, my first Windows operating system being Windows 95. After my Windows Vista had become bloated enough, and I was developing much more, I decided to try out Ubuntu. I was very impressed by everything: the installation system, the interface, flexibility, etc. I also think it is unfair for people to judge these two without fully understanding both operating systems and their capabilities. Every person has a different need for their computer, and the operating system they chose should mirror their needs. Therefore, I have ended up being a Linux user, and I hope to keep it that way.

Thanks for listening :)

None

NorthstaR (not verified) - November 7, 2009 @ 3:31am

Lets face it Windows 7 is on par with Linux, it may be a bit slower with some things and faster with others, but ultimately you have whichever o/s suits your needs.

A PC games player is not going to bother with Linux if his primary concern is games. A linux user who uses the PC for work isnt concerned about windows, just as a Mac user doesnt care about either.

So this whole thread is mainly fanboyism.

I personally used XP till i switched to win7 recently and i can feel the difference, its snappier and hits the desktop in about 30 seconds, which is quick enough for me.

Who Cares?

DeadTux (not verified) - November 8, 2009 @ 3:52am

Where do we put the windows if we living without wall?
Mr. G leaves MS becoz Windows is dying, he cannot find the remedy.
2 much Linux elitist in this forums, they can't find nobbies to mock so they kick each other butt.
Sorry I don't want to spend any dime 4 the dreaded expensive stupid, and broken X.Org machine such as Apple.

Softwares that run

kurtbel (not verified) - November 9, 2009 @ 10:25am

I think the idea of the report is great, but there are a lot of popular compatible softwares (like, for example, the office suites for each O.S.) that could be measured to give better idea of a day-to-day use of each O.S.

Thanks

Kurt

kurtbelmonte@gmail.com

windows 7

kirishanth (not verified) - November 10, 2009 @ 2:54am

I studying ICT in srilanka

Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Unkown (not verified) - November 10, 2009 @ 6:27pm

had been using windows for 5 years, switched to ubuntu an year ago which had made computers worth spending time on, found no problem in linux, windows really sucks and will suck forever.