Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7

Distros

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

ubuntu & windows 7

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

Boot time should include starting 1 or 2 useful applications.

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

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

very good test, but it has

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

Windows & ubuntu

a comparision with windows & ubuntu

ubuntu does not actualy copy

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

Richards benchmark is

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

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

hello

what is Vista? o.O

Dr.

nerds

Chuck Norris still boots

Chuck Norris still boots faster

To all and everyone...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So stfu... this thread is over!

> "If I'm not mistaken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol... Seriously?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't they say this in 2001?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, please STFU, and RTFM.

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

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

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

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

I agree with above - mostly irrelevant tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Free" in opensource means liberty???

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

?

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

All unix flavours

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

Thanks for the info

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

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

Bla bla bla

Windows uber ales linus-fags

Usless tests that prove nothing

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

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

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

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

Windows on Fusion

I don't understand...

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

I just like knowing that if

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

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

keep in mind

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

Benchmarks Vs. Daily Experience

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

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

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

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

Why Ext - why not Reiser

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

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

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

comments

a lot of valid points have been made here,

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

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

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

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

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

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

check ubuntu live dvd gui creator, or similar words

Not Simply A Baseless Analysis......

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

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

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

Windows 7 and Vista and Linux

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

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

Recycling 1 item (0 bites)

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

response to all linux users

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

what a pile of crap.

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

You can be serious.

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

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

Damn. Worthless test -.-'

linux is the best

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

Login Time

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

Forget about UBUNTU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Specs:

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

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

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

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

Spellcheck, my bad.

Let me corrent my spelling a bit:

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

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

Thank you...

Thank you...

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

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

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

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

Ur all forgetting one thing.

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

HAHAHAHAHAH.

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

This is a benchmark, a datum only

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

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

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

Idiot posters

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

I love Ubuntu, and this

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

#! CRUNCHBANG LINUX #!

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

Faster
Better
and more Hackable!

helloooooooo

helloooooooo

how many times does it re-boot

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

>nn

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

built in software - windows

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

ok, how about the truth...

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

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

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

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

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

Please re-do test!

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

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

There's a huge difference.

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

What the f...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until then, let's keep striving forward!

Comment viewing options

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

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
We can't accept links (unless you obfuscate them). You also need to negotiate the following CAPTCHA...

Username:   Password:
Create Account | About TuxRadar