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

Cool.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - November 13, 2009 @ 1:16pm

Cool.

Windows 7 Boot Times - Are you including Startup Apps?

Jeesh (not verified) - November 20, 2009 @ 4:44pm

I'm curious to know if the boot times include any apps that are part of the startup process. Some users know how to disable many of these apps from starting up at boot time, but the general public doesn't.

That can explain the shorter boot times that some posters are mentioning here. Can the author answer that?

Vista is Faster

Sumanta (not verified) - December 1, 2009 @ 7:22am

I'm running vista 64bit on a core 2 duo machine with 302gb hdd. It runs very smoothly compared to xp and ubuntu 9.04 which I used to test. I dont about ext4 filesystem because i used ex3. Ubuntu has very poor applications to use..
I appretiate that ubuntu is free but my friend is running a free genuine copy of vista after vatidating with microsoft.. with oem license. I prefer vista because of its smoothness and preloaded applications,
vista takes about 50 seconds to boot and 20 sec to shutdown
ubuntu takes 2 minutes to boot and 1 minute to shutdown,

LOL, Dumbasses

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 2, 2009 @ 7:29pm

lol, your all a bunch of dumbasses.

This is a benchmark, it is based on the creators systems, os and comparisons. nothing more. stop bieng such dumbasses and create your own benchmarks using your own comparisons.. FFS!

The trouble with LINUX.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 6, 2009 @ 3:53am

The reason Windows is the most popular OS in the world isn't the OS at all. I am a Windows user. I have tried several distros of Linux. When it comes to installing and supporting hardware and software, I'm sorry but Windows wins. It is because it is popular that companies support it by writing software and drivers for it. Average people don't know how or want to know how the compile their own hardware drivers. They want an install program to do it for them. They don't want to know how the computer works under the hood. The list of available software titles that will run on Windows is the most influential component of what keeps Microsoft in business. They might produce software that is buggy (very buggy) but they are the biggest fish in the pond right now. That might change in the future. What I see needs to happen is that Linux needs to commercialize. I know that probably goes against the open source idea but people will only do so much for free. Many ideas are born out of pure greed. Software is no different. Good luck Linux!

Ubunto Windows kicks butt and best of all it is free !!!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 11, 2009 @ 3:11am

cost $0.00 and kicks butt priceless.

There are a lot of people

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 13, 2009 @ 7:25pm

There are a lot of people whining about the installation mouse click benchmark. I wonder if any of them would even have the brains to speak up if the original poster hadn't specifically, in bold italics, stated that most people wouldn't care about it. If they hadn't already told you this wasn't a big deal, would you even have realized it?

And yes, when I'm the one having to help mom switch OSes, mouse clicks does matter.

ubuntu is free

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 21, 2009 @ 12:39am

lol if windows 7 weren't free i would not use it. you know what i mean.

benchmarks

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 30, 2009 @ 8:14am

i have ran a beta of Win7, and i am currently triple-booted with XP, Vista, and Ubuntu 9.10. I am on a laptop with an infinitly lower spec than your test computer, and even i get fast load times. on older computers, the speed differences are far more noticeable. while i dont have exact times, Ubuntu, including log-in time, takes about 30-50 seconds from GRUB, whereas XP (from the vista bootloader, which runs after GRUB)loads and is usable in about 1.5-2 minutes, and Vista (from the same point as XP) is over 2 minutes. all my operating systems run with the same password, and the same hardware, namely a Presario V2607CL laptop from Compaq, all stock except for an upgrade in ram: 1.25GB total, 1.125GB after deducting my gRAM. My processor is a singlecore at less than 2GHz. and i run 3d games on all my OSes, although getting WINE to work is a huge hassle half the time.

Gaming on Ubuntu is a hassle, if you want to use Windows-based games, because you need to first check the appDB from WINE to see how well it will even work, if at all, then you have to install the game, and then make any necessary mods to the game or WINE to make the program work.

all in all, Ubuntu is a far superior OS than Windows. and that's high praise from me, considering all my experience and loyalty is to windows.

god bless ubuntu

Coskun (not verified) - December 30, 2009 @ 8:20am

This test very gooooood and very gladsome ^_^

Thank you too for this test.

vista v 7

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 30, 2009 @ 8:25am

Windows Vista, on a fresh install, takes about 1-2 hours, unless formatting is needed, in which case, it could take up to 3 or more hours. even with formatting, 7 NEVER took more than 45 minutes to install, and set up. Ubuntu still beat them on my rig at only 20 minutes for full install, including repartitioning w/o damaging data. and my rig is a 1.8GHz Single-core processor, 1.25GB System RAM, 256MB Shared VRAM, 100GB HDD, and overheated and somwhat damaged DVD-burner. And i am a Windows user. i have only been using Linux (as something other than a data recovery tool) for a day now.

It is fake

FuckingLinux (not verified) - January 3, 2010 @ 5:13am

You MotherFucker it is a fake benchmarked. Fuckkkkkkkk linux. Fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ubuntu.

Mac is better. Windows is best.

The real truth from an old timer kids!!!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 9, 2010 @ 8:12pm

It is probably about 18 years since I first used linux and to be honest, although it was part of my Computing degree i ended up a windows user, and soon after a MSCE, I am not throwing qualifications at you, they were only the requirement of an employer who wanted us all trained on the de-facto business operating system for just about every small and most of the medium to large size businesses.

Linux at the time was discussed on bulletin boards by the nerds only, it had to be, because only the initiated could understand how to use it.

Every few years since that time I have experimented with the current flavours of linux, in truth I liked the idea of open source software, and the hope of some competition in a market dominated by Microsoft, but linux failed to deliver the user experience I needed for customers, the business users I supported and even myself.

I am not going to argue or add to the long running debate over which is best, but one thing is for sure, there are a hell of a lot of kids and relatively non technical users debating on this thread, I type this message on an Ubuntu install, and for the first time in almost 20 years, it is a Linux install I am going to keep.

Linux is catching up folks, it is coming of age and the days of the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop are now very much numbered. A true story of David and Golliath is unfolding before us and it is only good for everyone,

Choice is never a bad thing.

Peace!!!!!

yes i know its a mcse

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 9, 2010 @ 8:14pm

just re-read my post, its been quite a while since i did that irrelevant qualification

FNG

Anonymous Angry Baby Penguin (not verified) - January 10, 2010 @ 12:11pm

I doubt any will read this since there are 5 pages of this pissing contest going on. I am a windows user now trying Ubuntu 9.10. My computer has been to the repairman 3 times in 6 months for severe windows viruses! I have 6 spyware programs installed and it doesnt even matter!

Ubuntu is a great deal! Sure I only looked at it originally for browsing but I think I'll look to it more and more as I get better with it. I am tired of windows fleecing me for every little thing, and I am not positive my computer repair guy isn't behind all the viruses and laughing all the way to the bank. Him and all these spyware co's, they're probably all in it together hacking at night and fixing in the day! If people can't see that they deserve to get robbed like they are. And how come after all these new windows OS's they still haven't fixed the virus issue???

Van der Lancaster"
--"I spent about 12hs looking for these missing drivers and a little more to learn how to recompile and install.
Oh, I needed to adapt the flash player, because adobe doesn't have a 64 bit version of this software for Linux."--

Don't be stupid, it's time well spent! It took me 20 years and thousands of dollars to buy and learn how to use everything I do in windows. I'm on week 2 with Ubuntu, and haven't spent a dime, unless you count my expensive windows education it took to get here! Plus you don't even take into consideration the time it takes to relearn a new OS every time M$ wants to come out with a newer version you get whether you like it or not when getting a new computer, dilhole! URGGG!

----"In the meantime, I'll install Ubuntu on my second partition and give it a try (because I'm interested and have time to learn a new OS, but hey, not everybody's like me...)"---

Getting easy Linux info is the hardest thing, after that it's basically the same feel as windows, just browner. You won't be disappointed, for the money you can't be!!!

I'm all for competition and that's about all I think M$ is good for at this point. But, if M$ fixes the virus issue, Linux even free won't be nearly as attractive. I hope M$ doesn't fix it, they don't deserve to prosper anymore!Thanks to all the Linux producers!

Now throw in the necesary security

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 14, 2010 @ 2:08am

Now install the necesary security to run safely on the internet and re-benchmark. Let's see Ubuntu - none required. Windows 400 tons of Kaspersky or Norton or whatever.

Now you can have some real-world results. Most computers are on the net today aren't they?

win7 vs ubuntu

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 18, 2010 @ 10:34pm

I'm a very satisfied Ubuntu user, everything working like a charm- can't imagine better OS. Still, I was a little affraid with all that hype around 7, everyone claiming it's the best OS ever- so I bought new laptop, 7 Premium preinstalled, and I switched it on, wondering if 7 is gonna pull me back to MS camp. But over 6 months with Ubuntu made it's point:

1st of all, well, I thought I'm gonna cook some dinner while OS was loading for the first time. It took almost half an hour before preinstalled OS was ready to use. I thought- well, 1st time it lags, so what...
Used for fast Ubuntu boot times, I remained sad for 2nd, 3rd, 4th boot of Windows 7. It's simply starting up like a bicycle over Ferrari compared to Ubuntu. Luckily, new laptop has some preboot linux environment for quick web browsing. I see I'm gonna be using that one a lot.

Next thing- no more classic start menu. Zillion of damned settings over everything. After gettin used to Gnome, Windows shell is complicated as hell. Well, good points go for inovated taskbar and on-focus behaviour, shading to window or to desktop- at least some progress has been made.

Ok, it didn't crash for two hours of testing, that's good. Still, it was sluggish and waaay not as straight-forward as Ubuntu.

Windows 7 stays, I guess, just in case some app didn't work thru wine and for camera system (damn Siemens, paid twice the cost of equivalent camera system just to find out that it can be managed only from Win :((

People saying Linux has no good apps. I totally disagree. It just depends on having mind wide opened and try new approach. I find Ubuntu way more practical for work than Windows. OpenOffice, or even AbiWord suits me well for all the business work here, I'm using Inkscape for making pretty good marketing materials. I edit company webpage with Kompozer or even gedit without any problems. Multimedia-wise - Rhythmbox is quite satisfactory and SMPlayer is perfect for me.
I just still can't breathe over the fact that all that fantastic software for Ubuntu is all free. And it's practical. Puristic design- keeps you oriented for work. Just what I need- computer to help me with work and not to distract me from it with fancy sluggish shell.

Well, the point was .. see you MS .. with next OS - hope it'll be finally linux based :D

win7 vs ubuntu

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 18, 2010 @ 10:53pm

I forgot to add - hardware support. Well, let's FACE IT.

Windows, started bluetooth, 3 minutes wasted installing driver (at least it was there). All working until suspend, bluetooth crashed on resume.

Ubuntu, started bluetooth, icon appeared in a second. All working.

Windows plugged in multifunctional laser printer. Driver needed. Downloaded 150MB package from internet. 10 minutes wasted. Installed driver. 4 minutes wasted. Set all up to work like it should. 8 minutes wasted. Printed page.

Ubuntu. Plugged in multifunctional laser printer. Printed page.

Windows. Plugged in mobile phone to connect GPRS. Driver needed. Installed whole SE PC suite to get driver. 6 mins downloading, 3 mins installing. Chose service. Connected.

Ubuntu. Plugged in mobile phone. Chose country and provider from list. Connected.

The point is, in Windows, for everything I need drivers, bundled software crap, installation CDs, management panels etc etc.

In Ubuntu, I don't need anything. It just works. And if it does not, then I google solution, add some script and it works. Brilliant.

There is one thing where Windows clearly wins - games. Luckily, I kinda grew up from playing games. I have work to do.

ubuntu best as compared to windows

ludwig osei (not verified) - January 21, 2010 @ 7:46pm

am a software vendor for security reasons i believe Linux OS are far better as compare to windows OS

perfect

web tasarım (not verified) - January 24, 2010 @ 2:00am

I'd like to see these tests run again in a few months time when Fedora 11 has shipped, since a large number of upcoming features have a positive effect on performance (20 second boot being the most obvious). thank you very much check up perfect article kurye very good web page kurye your article is succesfull internet reklamlarÄ±fuar standÄ± my web design web tasarÄ±m

How about the real test

Actros (not verified) - January 29, 2010 @ 4:18am

Ok I have read the test results and the comments, I have been a Ubuntu user for 2 years now, prior to that I was a XP and various other OS systems user, including MS-Dos 5.0 and up. Now you really need to do a test that really hammers the system, in the days of Dos and 1st Windows there was a Test for computers called Torture Test, You now need a test to force an OS to crash and measure how long it takes and how long to recover.

When I last used XP I had constant reboots all the time from system crashes, and it was not only my system, I have seen other people experience the same issues, this explains why Windows has a recovery mode running, In the 2 years I have used Ubuntu I have only had 2 and I was the cause of them and they were recovered from the Grub boot loader, so Ubuntu does have a recovery mode its just not as taxing on the system.

Codex I seen that mentioned, I have them all and they cost me $0, I needed a codex on XP once, and it said I had to pay, I am not a cheap ass, but there is somethings that should just be free, OS is 1 of them.

Actros Computer wizard and is always looking for a better system.

I personally use Linux at

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 6, 2010 @ 3:57pm

I personally use Linux at home and work. And my reasons are:
1- simple system that doesn't get horribly slow as time passes.
2- it comes with good development tools at no cost, such as gcc.

BUT Linux honestly sucks on its GUI. XSERVER is bloated. Linux must give the option of:
1- run in userspace and suffer the delay while increasing uptime should GUI crash (xserver)
2- run in kernel space and enjoy blazing fast response (such as FBUI which is rejected from being included in Linux kernel for lack of backward compatibility against xserver)

To sum it up, Linux is a cheap but works OS that due to it's cheap simplexity is lighter. Don't think that Linux is lighter because of using super-ahead-of-time-algorithms! You wish! All software design and algorithms in Linux are really old and already used by other "paid" software.

from a use's prospective...from my prospective as a user!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 21, 2010 @ 8:50pm

I agree with the comment titled "is this article a joke" I don't beleive this is a comparison for "a user's prospective". None of these things I care about, except boot-up, which is not that much of an issue but relevant, and moving files, which also is'nt that much of an issue, but is more relevant than the first AND we don't see that much of a difference, from a users prospective I would'nt go off and choose ubunto for the reasons you have givin me! Its fast, WOWee, what about the important things a user "actually" looks at, give me some graphs that make sense for a user, as a user does'nt care about any of that stuff, which in most cases is done once, and with shutdown you can leave it shutting down and move on to what your going to do. a user, like me cares about what I get offered and compatibility issues plus the speed of the system when its on with those things I got and are compatible, give me a graph of that and if Ubunto gives me more for less or better speed I would gladly use it! Show me some graphs that are realy for a "User's Prospective" please

Thanku

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 24, 2010 @ 9:05am

It was great!

Ubuntu...

Sajjad (not verified) - February 27, 2010 @ 9:40am

Believe it or not, Ubuntu is better ---- FREE

Ridiculous

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 4, 2010 @ 12:07pm

Installation mouse click is the most ridiculous aspect of evaluation. Who care? I don't care it has 50 or 100 clicks, if it works fine after.

I am a user of both Ubuntu and windows, I have feeling that they have their own advantages. Windows is much , much easier for a people who don't familiar with commanding, and it is most compatible OS with almost all great software.

it depends

diablo10000 (not verified) - March 10, 2010 @ 6:21am

these benchmarks also depend or your configuration of hardwaer,i'm running ubuntu/linux/ultimate edition that has all the bells and whistles. i used to have windows xp on my old tower. i'm currently using a custom tower with an AMD phenom2 X 4 965 black edition 3.4 ghz quad core, asus m4a79t deluxe motherboard, 8 gigs of gskil ddr3 ram,evga 1 gb ddr3 video nvidia 9800 gt based 1000 watt nexus psu, ultra chilltech cpu cooler w/ independent management and tec cooling, 2 X hitachi 2 Tb sata Hdds, 2 X dvd multi format burners, 5 X case fans @140 mm, linux boots @13 seconds for me from power on to desktop. on my old machine was northgate tower, intel P4 2.4 ghz 40 gig hdd wd caviar nvidia 4400mx 256 mb, hp dvd burner it took 30 seconds to boot from power on to desktop. on my northgat tower i had XP on it till it wouldn't boot with windows anymore it took 2 minutes to boot.i love linux compared to windows and no matter how much criticism linux gets, it won't change my mind.

~END OF LINE~

lets get real here.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 6:23am

We all know linux/unix distros are slimmer and in most cases secure.
But why is this benchmark being done? Its simple for the sole reason to show performance comparisons for, yes you guessed it "favor of a OS". That's what this about, and has been for years.

We know Open source OS users would love microsoft to be second in the overall scheme of the "favor of the OS" war.

Here is the bottom line why a majority use microsoft's OS, opengl/D3D gaming. Although we all try not admit it, we know gaming software is seriosly geared toward windows platforms.

So we have millions of users that are already acustomed to windows platforms. What would help would be that developer relations should be required to make either a port or a native game for unix based OS's. If this progress could be made, a lot of people would give up windows all together.

Please keep in mind not all of us gamers are retarded, we also do work on our systems, graphics desgin,programming, IT admin, you name it, we work, and can also play an online game. Not to say that we don't know how to install unix'd based OS's and try and find some port for gaming or find a game that runs under wine etc. It just the fact that windows is easy to use, it does work, you do have to maintain the OS, but hell I can work on my comp for work, and I can game.

All that the open source community needs to do is yell at the game developers to make a easy to use installer and support for graphics accelleration.

Ok go ahead and flame me ;)

If you would like to flame me, my email address is dustinmatia@gmail.com

Gamers

d (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 9:54am

Read a comment from someone that games dont belong on a PC? Its a rather large section of the PC world, the system im using now is a gaming system - running windows 7 pro, this sucks I would love to dump 7 where it belongs [in the trash] but as of yet I cant find a good alt to it for "games". At this time 7 seems to be the only thing going.

Nice test! I like how it's

Communist Penguin (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 7:22pm

Nice test! I like how it's pretty much free from bias.

Just for the record, I use Kubuntu, and Windows 7 Home Premium.

I like them both.

i dont care what do you say

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 9, 2010 @ 5:23am

i dont care what do you say but for me vista is way faster than windows 7 maybe windows 7 is faster at boot up but other stuff no

Benchmarking?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 24, 2010 @ 10:25am

Benchmarking is a technique to measure the PERFORMANCE of a software/system. It has nothing to do with user interface,usability,look. So, please before posting stupid, think outside the box!!! Look for other threads for usability and look of both Win 7 and Linux.

Benchmarking?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 24, 2010 @ 10:25am

ubuntu 10.04 needs to be put to the test now

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 30, 2010 @ 8:59am

Ubuntu 10.04 just came out today. I've been playing with it all day and one of the things that stood out most profoundly was the boot up time. It boots in like under ten seconds. I'm guessing that it is now the leader in boot time.

I had heard like 6 months ago that google was going to try to focus on a super fast boot time for the operating system they've been working on, and well I guess someone working for Ubuntu beat them to the punch.

I've been toying aroudn with linux operating systems for five years but this is the first time I've really given Ubuntu a chance. I have to say as an end user there are simply no other linux operating systems as user friendly as this. I think it is easier to use and more self-explanatory and all encompassing than what Windows has to offer with 7. It also has the kind of community support that has attracted enough attention from tech companies to start adding linux driver support. I'm really blown away by what they've managed to build over the last 4 years.

I really want to get behind this operating system now. And for one thing I'd like to see articles like this redone to include 10.04.

heloo

BMW (not verified) - May 1, 2010 @ 10:38am

my Pc
ubunutu 10.4

take 9 second start up
5 second shut down
watching to vedio and gaming very fast
not lok not should rebot not cost 175 dolar as win 7
not bla bla condition free to download
and I can find any pakage I want by second.

With Ubuntu 10.4 no virus no hak pc no problem.it is The Best os

heloo

BMW (not verified) - May 1, 2010 @ 10:39am

my Pc
ubunutu 10.4

With Ubuntu 10.4 no virus no hak pc no problem.it is The Best os

Why Linux

Rohmux (not verified) - May 6, 2010 @ 9:03am

my Linux: Archlinux

- best Software management (not seen in Windows or OSX)
- rolling release (this is the reason why im not using other distros). Install once for a lifetime :-)
- I decide what the OS is doing (Ok this is not for n00bs or windows users).
- When i Play games, i play the old ones. Don't like these supergraphic3d hypes. gaming is for fun. I can play all these games on linux.
- I still got a winxp in a virtual machine (for once or twice a year).
- i'm not using photoshop because i don't need to. All my needs can be done in digikam (awesome prog, watch out).
- most used programm is the terminal (even if there is a gui), i can do MOST of my work quicker in a terminal (needs some knowledge, "man man" and you are done).
- Even compiling in Arch is very simple (yaourt).

So why do i still need Windows?
I don't care about some ms faster copying or booting or whatever. When the OS runs, it runs. After intensive use of xp, osx 10.5 and linux. I find all of them feels similiar in GUI.

window

royaltechniche (not verified) - May 11, 2010 @ 5:10pm

good

Nice try

LightSpeed6 (not verified) - May 22, 2010 @ 4:38pm

You have gotta be kidding me! There's a comparison for the number of CLICKS during the installation? No one cares clicking as long as the installation is INTERESTING! And I think the Windows 7 installation is pretty solid!

They've compared installation time blah blah, but have you considered comparing the CONFIGURATION time? It takes AGES to configure some stuff like for example an Eclipse IDE with a few add-ins! Where as in Windows, its just "double click, next, next, finish" :-D

Totally agree with "Is this article a joke? Benchmark something important."'s post! Stuff like this just makes Windows SHINE! So mock on!

What about more decent Windows variants ?

Alexandru Fira (not verified) - May 24, 2010 @ 9:06am

I would also test these with XP, Windows 2000 and Windows 98.

Honestly

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - May 27, 2010 @ 6:57pm

You are a moron why dont you go a give Gates an oral organ massage that all your brain seems to be able to handle

Vinnie The Skinny

Windows 7 Ultimate Programs....

Anonymous Linux / Microsoft... (not verified) - June 4, 2010 @ 11:16pm

I here alot of say about how Linux Ubuntu and Wiondows 7 having different amount of programs installled after a clean install. i like both operating systems very much. Ubuntu is really good, and fast, but with the experience ive had, Windows 7 Ultimate has MANY more Games, features, and programs installed with it. (eg. Paint, 13 games, snipping tool, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center... ect. Ubuntu has a couple helpful programs installed, but nothing to get excited over.

Superb echo

Goo (not verified) - June 5, 2010 @ 8:38pm

A little test with interesting results. Especially the posted reactions are much more interesting than the test itself. Throwing stones at each others seems to be an excellent disciplin for most writers.
I love to see more tests coming up and look forward for the reactions.
Great job guys!

Pathetic

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - June 6, 2010 @ 3:59pm

Misleading, poorly written, TERRIBLE "benchmarks".

You just earned yourself a StumbleUpon blacklist for this ENTIRE DOMAIN because I don't want to read anything published by people willing to be seen with you in public, in a manner of speaking.

If you're going to compare the two as "desktop OSes", then you had better also include the fact that Linux wireless drivers are pretty much unusable (b43, ath5k, and others), while Windows has WinRot in all its glory (though a stable Windows system *can* remain stable; a bad network driver is forever... or until someone rewrites it, which doesn't seem to be happening)

Final word: this is utter crap. Find a different profession, one where you won't make people throw up in their mouths from reading your drivel.

good bay micrsoft

tariq irsan-jordan (not verified) - June 13, 2010 @ 2:00am

after using win. OS (about 8 years )from win 95 to win. 7 ultimate i found that Microsoft dont have chance with linux OS ;
now iam runnig mi machine with ubuntu 10.4
i think its best than win.7

The last best hope for Vista

Abyss (not verified) - June 18, 2010 @ 2:07pm

OK people I hear all of you slamming Vista I have had a Vista machine for just over 4 years and is still boots in 40 seconds my specs are AMD athlon 2.20 GHZ dual core,
345gb HDD SATA, 2Gb of RAM has IDK how many Viruses from Lime wire,Aris,and, Frost wire and still runs better then any Xp machine I have been on.As for Ubuntu it uses low resources and I have to say has been looking better in the last 2 years right now i am on a Win 7 machine specs 2.20GHZ Intel duo core , 500GB HDD and GB RAM and have had it for 8 months and it boots in 20 seconds has been infected with a bot once and still works to perfection my first computer ever was aWin XP Intel Celeron 2.80GHZ single core, 30GB HDD and, 512MB of RAM and it booted in 30 Seconds mind you it still does and it is 5 years old so these tests are inconclusive and full of fail take a PC that has been used for a few years and then do the tests so until next time this has been your daily tech lesson and lecture Abyss signing off.

Only one thing really

Alistair Thomson (not verified) - June 26, 2010 @ 1:29am

I love Ubuntu and it has solved a problem to combat viruses at home for the users here - only one thing that doesn't work - flash + graphic card - iplayer is diabolical on ubuntu and everthing else is fine the networking is so far ahead it hurts. I am an IT consultant - all I want is for ubuntu to run flash properly and it's done !!! how could you get it so far wrong?
Alistair Thomson

Ridiculous nonsense.

You've got to be kidding (not verified) - July 6, 2010 @ 7:50pm

I manage a datacenter predominately running Linux servers. FIRST, you've not installing the full distribution of linux. at only 2GB, you're barely scratching it. Now, in regards to your trumped up data transfer tests, let me just say that you have conflicting data here. How is it possible that the install is 4-5 times larger but takes only about 30% more time to complete? On the flip side of the coin, you show windows file transfers taking much longer. Let me tell you, I work with both Windows and Linux EVERY DAY, and Linux is DEFINITELY not faster.

Justin

Optimizing Windows 7

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 7, 2010 @ 10:07pm

Win 7 & Ubuntu 10.04 both love using my RAM.
Everyone says its Windows' 'Superfetch' but I disabled it and as many services as I could and it was very little change.

Un-installing some 'bloatware' in Ubuntu mellowed it out.

Both OSes orginally used ~500MB of 1GB RAM
Now Win7=~450MB & Ubuntu=~300MB

as a former Win32 Developer & Ass. NT Admin.
I am a happier computer user with Linux.

15+ yrs with Windows... 3 months with Ubuntu.

(I still play games on XP SP2.)

Edit - Optimizing Windows 7 (or Sys Resources)

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 7, 2010 @ 10:24pm

After closing Firefox, RAM usage for Ubuntu 10.04 is under 200MB with some applets running for checking weather and gMail... and of course 'htop' (aka Task Manager)

...did I mention this is on a translucent 3D desktop.

It makes me smile to see a finely tuned machine working with me instead of against me. (look deep inside Win7 to find the devil, -- no, I'm serious.)

Windows will die when the world opens its eyes.

Linux :(

SunOrion (not verified) - July 13, 2010 @ 12:40am

Is that all well I tried to Install one of C++ IDE on Ubuntu last few days and I tried on Oracle VirtualBox on Windows 7 by booting Virtually ,and I figured out 3 or 4 hours but still I couldn't realize how to setup C++ IDE ( I tried Anjuta and Mono both) most of people claim follow this or that but none of methods work for me ,I am pretty sure there is something wrong but couldn't find where it's cause the process of installing very annoying and everything Command Prompt based(of Ubuntu)

finally I have downloaded that manually and then there is no way to setup it ,damm.!
but in Windows you don't want to mess up around so much just download->Install
sometimes you may need to copy and paste the path to
System Environment but most of newer IDEs already done it automatically ,I was sick of Ubuntu and gave up and back to Windows,I have Windows7 64bit and I am very happy about Windows and also almost every game work on Windows infact most of free software on internet are Windows based not Linux or MacOS.!

The only Con is the Malware trouble everytime
you need to scan the computer unless you are totally screwed ,it was happened to me couple of times
I hate those Malware developers probably they are Windows haters.!!
well I don't like Microsoft as well cause they dominate over every poor development Orgs and crush them down
to sell their products that's their nature but what we suppose to do.? ah if Windows is the only solution.! sad

Windhoos 7

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 21, 2010 @ 7:59pm

Zo als elke windows vervuild windows binnen no time
en word zo traag als het maar kan
Linux 4 ever

Lack of Info

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - July 24, 2010 @ 1:28pm

First of all, if you want people to take this thread seriously, how about you specify how big the files you are transferring from HD to HD, and from USB to HD. In boot and shutdown, you didnt specify what services were running. Windows 7 automatically loads drivers for all the hardware installed, thanks to the new plug and play which has been developed...

Either way, it is not specfied if the hard drives are running in compatability mode, or in AHCI (which is the true SATA speed of 3 gb/s)

It also depends on the hardware, which you are running.. My windows 7 does not take 14.5 seconds to shut down, it takes 11 seconds, which i timed myself...

Compare linux with windows on a "normal" machine, and then......

Master Penguin (not verified) - September 7, 2010 @ 3:31pm

And how many people you know with a "Dell 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."????

Hein???

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 28, 2010 @ 8:05pm

O que tem a ver o cú com as calcas?

Quando estiverem comparando SUSE com Microsoft, eu mudo de dsitribuicão!

I am installing ubuntu as we speak . . . from a live USB

anthony (not verified) - October 11, 2010 @ 7:38am

If you don't think linux is the future than your kinding yourself . . . Ubuntu 10.10 is smoother than a Mac . . . .. and people what a system that "JUST WORKS" that is why Steve Jobs has been able to sell Macs for triple their retail value in specs . . . They work . . . fast and smooth . . . no viruses and the user is in control . . . Just as android and iOS murdered win-mo and have began tp dominate the mobile game . . . . so shale the laptop . . . netbook . .. PC game follow . . .

how kool is that I can USE my computer as it installs and look at that it is all done .. . time to reboot this puppie . . . . Install Ubuntu and thank me later

Tests should be repeated over few months ;)

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 26, 2010 @ 8:45am

So far, my experience with windows tells me that after some time it boots, shuts down and starts different apps much slower. XP and Vista can became very thoughtful after 2 years and that's on a computers used for office tasks and without games... And Ubuntu works just as it did from beginning.
I remember there was some video on the web comparing how windows slows down on netbook after couple of months and ubuntu works as fast as it did.

coegzist

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - November 3, 2010 @ 10:17pm

get a big HD and a mac and get them all, game on windws, brows on 'nix and work on mac. somthing like that.
Have them all and learn to work together.

Performance comment Vista v. openSUSE/Linux

rockchalk (not verified) - November 12, 2010 @ 8:06pm

Okay... Earlier this year I made the plunge away from WinTel machines to a Mac... I have been pleased with the change ---not because I am a loyal fan of either company...but because of speed and work production.

I know that OSX is a unix derivative so I decided to change my laptop (dogged by Vista) and my desktop (also Vista) --to Linux (Novell's openSUSE 11.3)...

I will never go back to Windows---I had upgraded to a Mac because my Vista laptop was slow... but if I had converted my Dell Inspiron 1420 to Linux, I might have never have bought the Mac...

While I can't quantify the difference the user experience is off the chart better than Windows.

it is like Windows and Intel are conspiring together.... Microsoft launches new bloated software... Intel sells faster chips to meet the need.

Linux Ubuntu is also smoking Windows Vista as a Web server

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - November 13, 2010 @ 6:15pm

We have all heard about how well IIS 7.0 is running.

But few know how bad IIS 7.0 when compared to Linux Web servers.

And the answer hurts: MICROSOFT Windows Vista 64-bit + IIS + C# is 5.8 MILLION TIMES slower than Ubuntu 8.1 32-bit (yes, even with the disadvantage of being 32-bit) + G-WAN, a free Web server with C scripts.

G-WAN authors went as far as to compare G-WAN on Windows and on Linux and the results reveal that the limit is the OS kernel.

Guess who is ashamed by the comparison...

Windows (xp, 7) is

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 7, 2010 @ 11:11am

Windows (xp, 7) is forever!!! Death to Ubuntu and Linux!!!!

A very important test has not been done

botg (not verified) - December 12, 2010 @ 7:57pm

A new test needs to be done which, I am sure, would show a HUGE difference between Windows and Linux. A test on machines that have been running Windows (any version) and Linux (any version) for months or years.
I fix computers for a living: Windows OS computers to be exact. Mac and linux computers rarely need fixing. After a few months or years of running a Window's PC, the computer becomes so slow and unresponsive, that the user winds up wanting to toss the computer and buy a new one. Not understanding that their OS is causing the slow down; not the computer. People are constantly asking me to speed up their computer. I do the usual: clean the registry, get rid of all the programs that start automatically, antivirus, defrag..... My point is: for the layman user out there, a linux (Ubuntu in my case) user does not have to deal with any of that. I would be out of business if everyone used some version of Linux.

Let's do some 3D ?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 27, 2010 @ 9:14am

Let's run something that REAL people use from time to time like COD2 Modern Warfare oh wait....

Windows 7 vs Ubuntu?????

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 14, 2011 @ 4:40am

Comparing Ubuntu to Windows 7 is like comparing a Race horse to a Plow horse. Sure Windows 7 might be optimized to run on new machines quite efficiently, but if you were to run an optimized version on Linux on the same machine the differences would become apparent. However, remember that while Linux is free, Windows is backed by programmers that are paid quite well for their work. If they want to continue to be paid for their work, then there is a reason for all the updates.

I like and use both OS's. I have to game on Windows 7, but I like the fact that I can take a machine, install Ubuntu, install Wine, and copy over the installed folder of World of Warcraft and be running in a matter of minutes. Can't do that on a windoze machine.

One interesting note, I took a hard drive from my linux box and installed it on my gaming computer since I needed to retrieve data that was being lost to a Windoze failure. It ran immediately without the installation of any drivers. Try that on a Windoze box, last time you could do that it was called Windows 3.1.

the clear winner is windows,

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 15, 2011 @ 7:37pm

the clear winner is windows, boot time is too slow on ubuntu, while on windows there are plenty of much better applications and they are free too, of-course linux is also free, but linux look is so cheap, and looks like developers are intrested in new distors only, why they donot want to make some awesome applications.

i dont really know why

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 15, 2011 @ 7:41pm

i dont really know why poeples write such blogs, looks like they have too much time to waste, while i dont have time to waste, so get a life and get simplicity, get WINDOWS. in which you don't need hours of compiling and editing config files.

the alchemy of ditros

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 21, 2011 @ 11:07am

Good article, what a grunt crowd. I read a lot of comments towards the tester regarding using one version of Linux over others. Maybe one of you Linux fans can tell my why GOOGLE decided to base there entire system on UBUNTU Linux? And Ebay? along with several other large corporations. Maybe the author did some homework? The rest seems to be personal preference no matter what OS you use.

Every os serves its purpose

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 29, 2011 @ 10:20pm

Every os serves its purpose i have 2 computers one a gaming machine it has win 7 and one a work machine it has ubuntu and win xp xp is on it incase my wife hugs the gaming computer and im stuck with this one and i want to play something. tough i manly use ubuntu on this computer beacuse less racet is herd from this old computer when its runing on ubuntu then xp.

Try it again after a few months

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - January 31, 2011 @ 6:03pm

I don't know about Windows 7, but every other version slows way down after a few months. Even with regular registry cleaning, it just gets clogged up.

Mr.

Kingping Ubuntu user (not verified) - February 5, 2011 @ 4:45pm

The most important thing for me in a operating system to have is the durability, integrity, swiftness with which it performs the work. I am the full time user of the Linux. I never had any experience with the Linux before. I just switched from Windows because I wanted a operating system that can enhance the swiftness of my work and I find that in UBUNTU which is Linux based operating system.

ITS REALLY AWESOME IN GRAPHICS THAN ANY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM -- EVEN BETTER THAN MAC OPERATING SYSTEM.

Get real

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 6, 2011 @ 9:47pm

Windows 7 is the best operating system out there. I own 3 computers. I have used unix, ubuntu, redhat, solaris, HP unix (in circuit test platforms), etc. Unix at times is a BITCH!!!!! Certain drives will NOT work at all. Compatability is a HUGE issue with ALL UNIX operating systems.

As for boot times. I don't have any problems with slow boot up times using Windows 7. But you do???

Or, should I state that you WANT TO????

Have a nice day. And I hope you find ALL your needed drivers for your ubuntu. I shure as hell did NOT.

And if you are only going to use your computer to surf the world wide web only then ....by an E-machine and forget about the different operating systems but if you want to use your computer for various tasks, (compiling test programs, running Hummingbird, using it for multiple use then end the crap and buy a PC with Windows in it. You can't beat Windows and why? HARDWARE COMPATABILITY and superb speed and stability. Yes, I did state stability.

I have rebuilt so many unix drives. I even dealt with Winchester Drives, 35 megabytes (Prism drive)and very HUGE and heavy hard drives all attached to a Unix Operating system, in a figure of speaking. 6.5 hours to formate and reload in Unix. That was a long time ago.

I remember back in 1982 how long it took me to set up a modem. What a nightmare.

Windows has made everything so easy.

Windows has stardardized the industry and Windows handles GAMING SUPERBLY (heavy graphics).

The ONLY advantage with Ubuntu is that it's FREE and that's it.

Bruce

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 23, 2011 @ 2:17am

To be honest, I have a degree in Computer Science. And to say, even say, Ubuntu is better than Windows is way out of line. I have performed my own test's between the two and tested the following: performance, speed, power, accuracy, and stability. Windows 4/5 and Ubuntu 1/5. The performance went to Windows, because of it's performance, you hardly see registry errors, like you may see with Ubuntu (for ex. gnome-panel, nautilus, etc.). Speed went to Ubuntu. I'd hate to admit it but speed was faster in Ubuntu. Although, that may be true, I am willing to wait 5-10 seconds extra, just to have Windows. Power went to Windows 7. Sometimes Ubuntu's Fail Safe doesn't load really well, when Windows does. Accuracy on how things perform: Windows. And lastly, Windows hardly needs to be re-imaged, unless you want an upgrade, but Ubuntu, does need to be re-imaged more often.

Um What?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 6, 2011 @ 3:01am

Firstly - Saying 'I have a degree in Computer Science'? I do to, like many other people, so what other people are not allowed to have an opinion?

So can you explain:

1) Windows is more stable, how so? Can you prove this?
2) Windows is more powerfull, how so? Can you prove this?
3) Windows has more Accuracy on how things perform? How so? Can you prove this? lol
4) Linux needs to be re-imaged (re-installed?) more then windows? How so? Can you prove this?

Making claims like this don't really prove anything besides your own bias.

Best out there!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 6, 2011 @ 3:32am

Ok Bruce,

Windows is the best operating system out there. I'll take your word for it.

Whats with the story's from the 80's? Relevant how? Oh i see you have a personal grudge with Unix because in the 80's you had to rebuild drives. In 1982 it took you a long time to setup a modem?

Newsflash it's 2011, modern Linux kernels and modules are pretty much on pare with Windows in terms of out of the box driver compatibilty (We are talking normal PC hardware and peripherals) I can also connect my Phone, GPS, Camera, Printers and USB Disk drives without the need to additional drivers.

I work with an IT Support agency and the guys regularly get Driver compatiblity issues with Windows, especially Windows 7.

To say that hardware compatiblity with Linux is TERRIBLE and suggest that Windows will solve every problem and be compatible with everything..is utter rubish....

Have a nice day :)

Please..

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 9, 2011 @ 4:07am

Count in the time consumed by the first update, it's annoying that it takes up around 50 minutes of non-pc using time.. that isn't fair to linux who polite updates the system in ~10 mins at background

god work

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 9, 2011 @ 2:26pm

god work

And this from a novice

ThatGuy (not verified) - April 24, 2011 @ 8:17am

After reading all these post from what I gather to be somewhat experienced end users, knowledgeable in every aspect of ALL Windows variants and Linux based systems. Here is a thought merely from a business owner that has used pretty much every OS system out there now. We simply want a system to be stable , relatively easy to maintain for an employee that doesn't need an IT masters degree , and an operating system that DOESN'T break the friggen bank to initially buy and spend more money just to keep the damned hackers at bay. JESUS!!!(I mean REALLY Microsoft!!!) you have got enough of my money.

Those of you who care to read between the lines what I use primarily on all my PC's, not to hard of a guess.

I will take the extra money I saved and put it where it belongs , in my business and my employees wallets and pocketbooks

About Linux

baraka (not verified) - May 17, 2011 @ 8:30am

I use Linux since 6 years now. I am using ArchLinux and will never install anything else on my PC. It is far easier for me just to grab the CD with Linux and install it instead of paying money for Windows which does not give me anything better - just more paying for any new software I'ld like to use. I know a lot of people praising Windows which actually do not have the right to use it, because they use it illegal. Same for the software - mostly cracked (because they need to pay again). I do not have this problem with Linux - its all free.
Regarding the performance - I am sorry but no Windows can beat my Arch in performance. I think that most of the people just do not know how to use Linux. Ubuntu is not a good example simply because it is one bloated system to help the regular user (or I might shall say loser).

uhmmmm what?

Anonymous Penguin from haha land (not verified) - May 20, 2011 @ 6:13am

what the hell does this mean !? haha ku ku

Let's test that

Windows Freak (not verified) - June 23, 2011 @ 7:48pm

Test how long you need to check your system has best possible drivers, how long stupid nvidia drivers install and how hard is to change driver version in linux. Then check what happens if you made bug in configuration that harm your system a little and Ubuntu and Windows will not want to boot normally. In Windows XP is safe mode easy for resolve any problems, Win7 can resolve some problems just on-the-fly, restore previous working configuration is also great if something wrong happens. And Ubuntu? Wow, if you're very lucky and know everything about system, then MAYBE you should fix small xorg.conf problem using lot of commands and additional bootable CD/USB device. Sorry, but stability and safety when nothing happens is nothing. What matters in real life is possibility to easy undo all wrong changes made by user and check everything using easy tools.

Sorry for my english.

Windows 7 is perfect O.S for

Anonymous Penguin12345 (not verified) - July 18, 2011 @ 1:58pm

Windows 7 is perfect O.S for home users. Looks like linux never needs configuration, no patching, no anti virus, eveything is there..lol...big joke. End users dont care what dey care is peace of mind and they want everything. They buy any hardware anywhere in world, it should work.

Linux eats dust when comes to globalization and localization.

Mac Os is even worst...most closed and steve jobs defined o.s

When it comes to hardware, linux cant even think about to match windows. Windows is better o.s for home and no voices, but a closed mindset.

windows

Anonymous As (not verified) - August 4, 2011 @ 2:28am

maybe the boot of windows 7 and windows vista is high because of all services that are stared and programs.. maybe you can try to stop all them and try again .

7 only

Anonymous Penguinfdf (not verified) - August 7, 2011 @ 6:17pm

windows 98 is even better than ubuntu

Biased Much?

GavinSpaceFace (not verified) - August 9, 2011 @ 2:35pm

This article is embaressingly biased and thus holds no credibility whatsoever. Shame cause it would have been good otherwise.

debain

Taxi (not verified) - August 23, 2011 @ 7:35pm

I bought new laptop yesterday with original win 7 home
i just removed win 7 and install Ubuntu
relay i don't fell fine with windows

high prise
every thing under windows by money

virus and spy every time
every second update and update
restart then restart again

These tests are certainly eye-opening.

"The New" Penguin in the Flock (not verified) - September 17, 2011 @ 3:48pm

These teats baffles me. I've been a **faithful** Windows/Microsoft/Dell user ever since I was like 3 (seriously), so I can say some pretty well-proven stuff about Windows. It always took the longest and always will. It's Microsoft's nature! Think about it: bored employees there for the cash (Windows) vs. hundreds of dedicated hackers, anti-hackers, and programmers piecing together the best features of Windows into Linux (Ubuntu)!
I am making this statement with 10 years of Windows under my belt opposed to about 5 hours on Ubuntu, which is REALLY saying something.

As for the install, starting Ubuntu was a pain in my ass for 3 hours while Windows 7 was a breeze to begin. However, after both got going, Ubuntu far surpassed 7's first "true" boot (full capability). I was able to just hop onto the 'Net and get my apps and Google Chrome and all that running. (You also must take into account that my computer's got 500gigs of HDD and 8gigs RAM to toy with.)

That's pretty much all I have to say about this, but I did forget to mention that I have NEVER used Vista and NEVER, EVER will! With that said, I think that wraps up my comment. Enjoy your day/night, and thanks for reading this if you did! :)

I'd love to see more

willy g (not verified) - October 30, 2011 @ 6:51am

This post is really dated and I doubt most of the reader fully understand how useful something like this could be.
First of all to the whiney b***hess that nick pic at every little detail such as "ubuntu is not linux" and my experience this or that" please go to school. If you want your nix mentioned run your own bench, and your mature,tweaked/heavily scripted nix doesn't count. IT specialist and other technical people should keep tbheir mouth shut on something like this.

The average joe has to download and instal his own nix or M$, complaint about difficulty is often based on the number of clicks/option the newb has to encounter. Startup and shutdown times are important especially for students needing to find assignment before the bus leaves.

If anything this lacks more test on other linux variants for comparison. Btw if your condition is right out of the box, keep it, let the fanboys do their own test after two weeks of use (unless it's something you just want to add for further discussion). If you could widen the M$ back to XP and the upcoming 8 and, toss in a few Macs for good measure. Mix your test machines also low end, gaming, nettops etc.

Like I said I've been waiting for something like this for a while and the potential for true real life simple benchmarks of OSes is exciting create a section for users to load stats and you've checks and balances.

Just forget the naysayers and whiney old IT desk jock an M$ employees surfing the net making negative comments about linux on a linux site. Like - said it has potential and I'll be back before christmas to look for a new more comprehensive benchmark.

Windows vs Ubuntu

Timmy Penguin (not verified) - November 18, 2011 @ 1:26pm

I`ve run both Windows Vista and Ubuntu on my computor and have really gotten to prefer Ubuntu for many reasons, not the least of which is cost. No more having to pay for the next version. Not to mention, I`m not sacrificing anything in performance. In fact, in most cases, Ubunto is a well gained advantage.

Speed

Anonymous2 (not verified) - December 5, 2011 @ 12:34pm

Ubuntu is definitely faster than Vista. I'd say 3-4 times faster, from what I have experiensed. In EVERYTHING. Boot, cold start program, warm start program, (and mind here, that it's very normal to use 2-3 MINUTES or more to open like GIMP in Windows), shut down, and everything else you can ever think of. Usage of RAM, fx. Vista was a ressource hog in every mean. IF you want the "Vista Theme", you need at LEAST 4 GB of RAM???!?

MS cheated and lied about hardware and RAM needed for Vista. Look at MS home page for system requirements, they're still there, still the same from the "microsoft intel vista-case" (look that up on Google), and they are still a big damn lie. Then look at requirements for Ubuntu - they are true.

?!

Anonymous (not verified) - December 7, 2011 @ 7:17am

not to analyze the presented data as accurate i will say that my netbook ASUS eeepc 1018p(intel atom n450) without 2gb ram upgrade came with windows 7 starter(approx $50 price included in the overall price for those who don't know this when buying netbooks with ms software preinstalled) had a fair bootup time however was extremely bare bones with a starter edition of ms office(big annoying advertisement taking up space on word) and when i discovered that the desktop wallpaper was locked and unchangeable i was seriously pissed. this computer struggled to perform even basic tasks like opening files and folders with considerable lag after removing the small amount of bloatware. it was not until i upgraded to 2gb of ram that it got some "breathing room" meanwhile Ubuntu 11.04 was flying by comparison in every area from my usage. networking was far superior. windows couldn't even tell if my wireless card was working half the time without messing with the settings repeatedly. even then it took nearly a minute before i could even getonline after connecting. in ubuntu connecting and surfing can be measured in seconds counting them on my fingers and often was immediately connected to a trusted network as soon as my desktop appeared. to top that off i switched to linux mint 12 and saw a huge performance change with my internal HDD from about 14mb/s write speed from external source on either windows or ubuntu to nearly 30mb/s write speed(something i didn't even know my HDD was capable of! oh and running compiz with lots of visual 3d effects(on intel integrated graphics BTW!) is relatively good eye candy too as well as practical. and customization... no comment there, lets just say that i felt liberated when i switched. i dual boot but rarely use windows now unless my work requires the use of applications that are extremely proprietary and nearly impossible to get working on linux. hell, even the PCSX playstation emulator works better than ones for windows from personal experience for wheneven i'm bored and want to kill time. all in all I'm pro linux regardless of whether the tests and data represented here were skewed or unrepresentative of real facts. I know my experience and that's what counts. a great philosopher once said at the age of 14 "if a thousand men agree upon a subject and know nothing about that subject then their opinion is of no value.". OH and i've yet to find a device linux doesn't recognize immediately after plugging it in or connecting to it. and what about community support? try getting advice with serious issues in windows for free... google your problem with a linux distro read a few articles and see if you don't stumble upon exactly what you're looking for. the Open source community has a far more useful knowledge base(that actually can be useful across platforms in some cases) and the attitudes are relatively friendly and willing to help as long as you're willing to do a little work yourself and learn something practical in the process. that' my 2 cents.