Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Install time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bootup and shutdown

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

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

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

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

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

IO testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmark

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

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

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

Switching to ext4

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

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

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


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

You should follow us on or Twitter

Your comments

Waiting for karmic turn.....

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



Linux sucks

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

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

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

RE: Linux sucks

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

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

PS: dont get upset im only presenting my ideas

Linux user here but....

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

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

Thanks for listening :)


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

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

So this whole thread is mainly fanboyism.

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

Who Cares?

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

Softwares that run

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



windows 7

I studying ICT in srilanka

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

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



Windows 7 Boot Times - Are you including Startup Apps?

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

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

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.

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 !!!

cost $0.00 and kicks butt priceless.

There are a lot of people

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

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


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

This test very gooooood and very gladsome ^_^

Thank you too for this test.

vista v 7

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

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!!!

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.


yes i know its a mcse

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


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

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

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

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

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


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 reklamlarıfuar standı my web design web tasarım

How about the real test

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

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!

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


It was great!


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


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

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.


lets get real here.

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


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

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

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 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 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.

ubuntu 10.04 needs to be put to the test now

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.


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 is The Best os


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 is The Best os

Why Linux

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.



Nice try

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 ?

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

Comment viewing options

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

Username:   Password: