Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the windows-probably-runs-more-windows-apps dept.

Linux Business 689

Anonymous writes "By now a lot has been reported on the new features and improvements in Ubuntu 8.10; it also looks like the OS is outperforming Vista in early benchmarking (Geekbench, boot times, etc.) At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?" (And though there are lot of ways to benchmark computers, Ubuntu 8.10 with Compiz Fusion is certainly prettier on my Eee than the Windows XP that it came with.)

cancel ×

689 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Faster than Vista! (5, Funny)

baffled (1034554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584945)

What an accomplishment!

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585095)

In other news, bi-pedal world championship winning Thai kick-boxer out-performs one legged man in ass-kicking benchmarks.

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585211)

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, I would be far more-impressed if I saw the headline "Ubuntu outperforms XP". Now that would be truly something.

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585365)

People who use actually have used Ubuntu have long been aware that it outperforms XP. Not sure why we have the non-story about it outperforming Vista though...

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585693)

Not sure why we have the non-story about it outperforming Vista though...

My thought exactly. Well, almost. My first thought was that a snail towing a 65-ton truck might outperform Vista, but I'm very polite. ;-)

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585557)

Ubuntu after 6 months of use beats XP used for 6 months.

That's easy. Windows get's clogged up with so much crap that in 6 months it's dead in the water. Hell simply installing webroot or another low grade Virus/spy service on XP and it's dog slow city. Most users also install every single crapware they can get their hands on, weatherbug, etc....

Thankfully there is none of that crap for Ubuntu/Linux..... yet.

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585715)

"Click here to install /bin checker to make your system faster! (you may need to enter your password)"
..........
"You have viruses on your system! We've installed and will remind you of this every 5 minutes until you buy the full version of our product"

Re:Faster than Vista! (2, Interesting)

cong06 (1000177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585769)

And there won't ever be as long as people stick to stuff that comes from apt-get, don't do silly things with permissions, etc. Linux forces good practices as far as security, and usage. Actually Ubuntu comes with those "widgets" available in the OS, so that it will b native, and won't bogg it down.

I thought the proper metric was suckage.... (2, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585681)

Not performance,

As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...

Re:Faster than Vista! (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585677)

And in related news, a blinged-out rice car is closely outperformed by a bush taxi.

...or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585733)

A motorcycle accelerates faster than a RV.

Although I'm not sure which one Granny would rather ride in.

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Interesting)

dsginter (104154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585455)

This is just more sensationalism.

I run Ubuntu 8.10 and yet I am somehow able to assess the situation pragmatically. As it sits, if I were to install Windows on my Ubuntu box, then I would probably make up the cost (aka "Micro$oft tax) with the annual power savings - Ubuntu *still* doesn't suspend-to-ram on my system (Biostar nforce 6150 motherboard with an Athlon X2 processor).

And while I try to shut the system down, when possible, I always find myself walking away for "just a moment" only to find myself not returning until the next day (or more). When Ubuntu can put up the functionality of Windows (including power management), then it becomes a proper comparison. Until then, it pains me to defend Microsoft...

Re:Faster than Vista! (5, Insightful)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585697)

When you shopped for the computer did you take as a parameter the fact that the manufactured was openenough to provide details on how to do suspend to ram to anyone apart from MS?

Re:Faster than Vista! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585585)

Does that mean it could pop up more "cancel or allow" windows per second?

Such a high bar ... (0, Redundant)

Bob Loblaw (545027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584953)

... doesn't a slug outperform Vista?

Re:Such a high bar ... (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585205)

Not when it's running on a 386... maybe...

Re:Such a high bar ... (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585475)

In Soviet Russia, Vista outperforms a slug and also Linux.

YES! (5, Funny)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584965)

2009 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop!

Re:YES! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585041)

2009 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop!

The Year of Linux on the Desktop is always 2 years away.

Re:YES! (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585077)

Actually, the year of the Linux desktop was last year.

This is the year of the Linux netboot.

Get with the program.

Re:YES! (4, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585179)

Wasn't that last year? Let's just say instead it's the decade of Linux on The Desktop.

Re:YES! (1, Interesting)

stedlj (62084) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585247)

Not even close!

Being faster means little if the average person can not install an application and have it work! That is WITHOUT going to the command line, editing some script, coping some file, or hunting for some needed RPM.

Re:YES! (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585389)

Oh, yeah, didn't you know? Ubuntu already fif all that a year ago. Well, not solely, but it's certainly been the direction. All I want now is an easy way to set up surround sound.

Re:YES! (3, Informative)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585441)

We are talking about Ubuntu.

No need for command line , scripts or anything else.
Just install , and if you need something , click on add/remove programs.

It's easier than Windows , where you have to look on different websites to get what you need.

In fact that is the accomplishment , that a very user friendly , though somewhat bulky distro like Ubuntu is outperforming Vista.

Re:YES! (3, Funny)

peculium.infirmus (1261356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585613)

Not even close!

Being faster means little if the average person can not install an application and have it work! That is WITHOUT going to the command line, editing some script, coping some file, or hunting for some needed RPM.

Especially when trying to install much needed RPM in a Debian based distro, talk about dependency hell !!

Re:YES! (2, Insightful)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585749)

And when you are trying to install a Debian .deb in Windows, talk about dependency hell!

Seriously, dependency hell is something only people that have used linux last time ten years ago can seriously bring up... Let it go.

Re:YES! (1)

somegeekynick (1011759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585397)

Actually, it's the Year of Astronomy [astronomy2009.org] . 2010, maybe.

Re:YES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585611)

Didn't they say that back in '97?

Re:YES! (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585757)

2003 was the year of Linux on the desktop. For me, that's when I put Mandriva on it.

Now if you're talking about Linux on the average person's desktop, I fear we may never have it. [slashdot.org]

"Like I told Leila, just download Open Office. It's free and will read and write MS Office files."

"Well," she said, "I did..." I doubted this but whatever "...and it was a ninety day trial version!"

"I don't know what you downloaded," I said, "but Open Office is free. Just go to..." I fired up a browser and googled. "Openoffice.org and click the tab that says 'download'. It's a full version and it's free."

"But... isn't downloading illegal?"

This, my friends, is why Linux and Open Office haven't taken over the desktop. The non-nerd media (and I daresay, quite a bit of the nerd media) have non-geeks thinking that "downloading is illegal".

Yes, I'm quoting myself.

Hate to say it, but (1, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584967)

Anything can outperform Vista.

When Ubuntu outperforms XP, then I'll complete my transition to an all-Linux house.

Re:Hate to say it, but (3, Funny)

jaguth (1067484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585011)

I request to have the tag "duh" added to this thread.

Re:Hate to say it, but (1, Informative)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585571)

"When Ubuntu outperforms XP, then I'll complete my transition to an all-Linux house."

I guess you've got some transitioning to do then, since it always has.

Outperforms, outmaneuvers, outshines, outstables, and outkicksass.

Re:Hate to say it, but (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585741)

I agree with some small exceptions. I have gone to an all Linux home (8 systems currently) but I still have some issues with using a couple of old Windows-only applications. Having said that, I'm more or less getting along without them, and have done so for long enough that I've either got a work around or figured out how to not need that program. This is not a criticism of Ubuntu at all, rather it is a criticism of the makers of those software packages, or would be if the software I sometimes would like to use wasn't so old (pre-linux era).

Aside from that, I can't see any reason to not use Ubuntu. My family has not noticed any difference. It doesn't matter to them whether it's Windows or Linux: when the window pops up requiring something to be installed, they react the same way. Other than that, they just use it. Once my wife wanted help with headers/footers in OOo and started to complain that "it's different from Word" but quickly fell silent when I asked her how to do what she wanted in Windows. She did not know and would have had to ask for help no matter which app she was using. The family uses 1.8 or 2.4 GHz machines with 1GB RAM. None of them are new MoBo. They never complain about system speed etc. Ubuntu rocks if you were to ask me.

Of course (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584971)

because Vista is a bloated mess, but Windows is still the predominant OS, and it will remain that way until the popular games & applications that real people/businesses use are available for Ubuntu.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585627)

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Faster (0, Redundant)

Taimat (944976) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584981)

Isn't almost anything faster than Vista? Seriously.... XP is faster, just about any flavor of linux is faster.... OSX is faster.. To me, it seems like the summary might as well read. "Atlantic Ocean hold more water than Lake Erie"

Re:Faster (2, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585231)

I suppose the good thing about the benchmark is its non biased evidence. Who knows if it will serve to convince someone to use Ubuntu/Linux or not but at least, those who needs to, will have something to use. Provided of course the source is credible to all...or until Vista obtains a countering non biased benchmark.
No I didn't read TFA but unless the difference on a modern PC causes delays of more than 10 seconds, most people using it for business productivity or for home use wont care.

Not really saying much (1)

babylon93 (611333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25584995)

"Ubuntu Outperforms Vista" is like saying "Ford Pinto Outperforms Amish Carriage"

How about just a plain old horse-drawn carriage? (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585255)

I don't know if the Amish would appreciate the association with Microsoft. Yeah, they avoid modern technology, but don't they have something in common with Linux and open source, at least philosophically? Roll your own, DIY, emphasis on craftsmanship? My neighbor had a shed built for him by a Pennsylvania Amish craftsman, and the thing is beautifully made. Actually, it's a miniature replica of his (rather unusual to begin with) 1929 Tudor-style house.

Re:How about just a plain old horse-drawn carriage (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585431)

Funny, because Amish people use computers. Seriously. They also purchase things from "the English."

Re:Not really saying much (2, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585327)

"Ubuntu Outperforms Vista" is like saying "Ford Pinto Outperforms Amish Carriage"

I dunno - I think you get MUCH better results when you rear-end a buggy.

Is this news? (4, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585033)

I've always assumed that Linux outperformed contemporary Windows equivalents on the desktop which is why I run Linux on old machines that are too slow for Windows but plenty fast enough for Linux. Linux speed and faster boots have never been enough to win the desktop. For that you need to be adequate in the categories users directly experience and you need mindshare which requires good marketing and distribution. Mac has great marketing and Microsoft has great distribution.

Re:Is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585377)

Honestly, I've yet to come across a full-featured Linux distro with either KDE or Gnome that boots faster than XP on a similarly powered PC.

Re:Is this news? (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585509)

Personally Ubuntu has always been slow for me, but the machine it is on is a P3 900 MHz and the Win box is a AMD 1.6 GHz so direct comparisons are hard to come by, though I was under the impression it would "fly" under such paltry hardware.

XP is what to beat - not Vista (5, Insightful)

SpuriousLogic (1183411) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585053)

Vista has already lost in the marketplace. More and more companies are skipping Vista to go from XP to Windows 7 because of all the performance and compatability issues with Vista. So comparing Ubuntu (or any OS actually) to Vista is fairly useless. If you want to make a case for business, do it against the OS's that business really uses - in this case Windows XP, or in the future, Windows 7.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585343)

But if Vista is such a turd, and Windows 7 [wikipedia.org] is virtually identical to Vista('cept for a new taskbar and other useless fluff), what makes you think that people would switch to it?

Microsoft had better develop a truly revolutionary OS and/or put more effort into supporting XP as people who are not already tired of Microsoft's crap will quickly become tired. After seeing Win7, I'm really starting to believe that XP will be the last decent OS from Redmond.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (2, Informative)

jjackalb (574662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585499)

7 is to Vista as XP was to 2000. I'm not convinced that Vista is all that bad. People skipped 2000 for the same reasons they say they're skipping Vista. Thing is, both 7 and XP are/were just prettier versions of the core components of the previous version.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585649)

so it's slower than vista by a magnitude of 4?

Windows 2000 absolutely SCREAMS on a modern PC. Install W2K and Office 2K and you havea machine t hat is insanely fast at almost all regular office tasks.

If Microsoft wants to decimate the world, give me modern security and tasks with a OS that is as fast as 2000.

Because honestly W2K was the best OS that microsft ever made.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (-1, Troll)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585445)

Vista has already lost in the marketplace. More and more companies are skipping Vista to go from XP to Windows 7 because of all the performance and compatability issues with Vista. So comparing Ubuntu (or any OS actually) to Vista is fairly useless. If you want to make a case for business, do it against the OS's that business really uses - in this case Windows XP, or in the future, Windows 7.

Well, considering that "Windows 7" is basically a theme and skin pack for Windows Vista, I guess benchmarking Ubuntu against Vista is the way to prepare for comparing it against 7.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (2, Informative)

bluesk1d (982728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585659)

That's completely wrong btw. It is based on the Vista kernel but make no mistake. It is a new OS. There are a number of early tests on the beta and it is clearly much faster than Vista. They even demoed it on an Eee PC with 1 gig of RAM and it ran like a champ.

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (1)

mk2mark (1144731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585515)

You assume too much.

tinyXP (1)

ztcamper (1051960) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585517)

Riped version of XP that has been circulating as of late is surprisingly good. It is much smaller. It boots significantly faster than Ubuntu 7.10 on IBM Thinkpad T30 (512 RAM). It has base memory load of 40-60 megs. With all my apps running (Firefox, OOo, etc.) it floats at 200-250. Damn thing consumes less memory than my applications! WOW! Never thought I'd see the day. Funny thing is that it takes a bunch of pirates to strip all the useless crap in order to turn XP into a decent product. Arrrr!

Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585587)

Vista has already lost in the marketplace.

Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it.

faster than windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585063)

great, can't wait to load battlefield2, CoD4 and Crysis on it.

I would have thought all the previous versions (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585069)

of Ubuntu could outperform Vista in speed?

LOL! (2, Funny)

MerlTurkin (598333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585081)

Hell a C128 is better than Vista! "Vista, how hard do YOU want to suck today?"

It will make a difference (2, Funny)

tazan (652775) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585087)

When it can run MS Office faster.

Re:It will make a difference (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585415)

You're playing with some pretty powerful forces just mentioning that, the universe is not a friendly place with all the things it can do.

Re:It will make a difference (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585519)

What makes you think it can't ?

Yeah? (4, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585089)

My father-in-law with a slide rule, graph paper and a mechanical pencil can outperform vista.

Dubious Distinction (2, Funny)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585115)

A dubious distinction, to be sure. Hell, my Heathkit H89 running CP/M outperforms Vista, at least when it comes to boot time. It outperforms Ubuntu in that regard also, come to think of it.

Good, but (0, Redundant)

rarel (697734) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585143)

Can it run Linux?

2GB SDRAM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585153)

FTA:

The Test Center's PC test bed was built with an Intel (NSDQ:INTC) Core 2 Duo E7200 CPU at 2.53 GHz, an Elitegroup Computer Systems G31T-M motherboard with integrated Intel graphics and 2 GB of SDRAM.

2GB SDRAM... wait, what??

When does it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585207)

At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?

It doesn't.

Re:When does it? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585259)

At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?

1 generation to get used to the idea that unbuntu is good enough now and not something that you need to install on a seperate partiation and does run no applications.

Laptops (3, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585219)

Wake me when it'll work on my laptop.

-Sleep/hibernation
-Wireless
-Softkeys

Re:Laptops (2, Informative)

vally_manea (911530) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585347)

Wake up, 8.04 does all those out of the box just fine on my laptop.

Re:Laptops (4, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585419)

Wake up, 8.04 does all those out of the box just fine on my laptop.

Oh, well I guess as long as it works on your laptop, everyone should be happy. Me? I have to jump through hoops just to get to "passable", much less "working".

Re:Laptops (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585773)

Oh, well I guess as long as it works on your laptop, everyone should be happy. Me? I have to jump through hoops just to get to "passable", much less "working".

I'm with you. I've never had suspend/resume/etc... work right on any laptop I've had until I got my MBP. I'm not sure why power management functions are so hard to get right.

Re:Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585765)

That tends to be an issue of what sort of laptop. My toshiba does sleep and hibernate in 8.04, but sound and/or usb stop working upon wakeup. My wireless only works with ndiswrapper and every third or so boot I have to reload the modules to make it work.

Re:Laptops (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585541)

- Sleep/Hibernation should work
- Wireless will work if you use ndiswrapper
- Not sure about softkeys. Don't need them.

Re:Laptops (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585599)

- Sleep/Hibernation should work but doesn't, at least not reliably
- Wireless will work if you use ndiswrapper why should I jump through hoops to use something that should work out of the box?
- Not sure about softkeys. Don't need them. I do, if I want to use my volume and mute buttons, as well as enable/disable wireless

Re:Laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585719)

I think the distinction here is that YOU cannot get it to work on YOUR laptop. No problem with the OS. Problem exists between keyboard and chair!

It Doesn't Make a Difference in The Marketplace (5, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585245)

First and most importantly, I genuinely despise "speeds and feeds" metrics. It does nothing but harm the distro world when it's reduced to dumb metrics like this.

Second, money talks and specs walk. Right now, Microsoft is the failsafe meme for most PHB's. There are a million reasons for this. Over time this will change as Microsoft tightens the noose. Microsoft's customer is not the admin, but the buyer. The buyer is indifferent to almost all specs and usually overrules engineering with their "business case".
 

Re:It Doesn't Make a Difference in The Marketplace (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585345)

Too bad PHB's have no spine, huh?

That's great (0, Redundant)

waffledoodle (1070284) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585249)

But does it run Linux?

Benchmarks dont really matter to most (2, Interesting)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585353)

Outside of techies and geeks, people just want to know if it runs whatever program they are used too. They dont care about #'s really. Maybe the benchmarks for video cards matter to some people for video games that wouldnt typically know what a benchmark is, but most people dont even know what linux is really (less ubuntu).

Really, this news is that windows scored a 2838, ubuntu a 3367.
Vista boot time: 56 seconds.
Ubuntu boot time: 50 seconds.

While I give a big high five to the developers, I dont think this is a watershed moment.

it would be valuable to now claim "faster than windows" in marketting along with other features. Just that simple phrase will have more penetration.

It Will Make a Difference in the Marketplace... (1)

nohup (26783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585363)

...Only when Ubuntu is several orders of magnitude better because it has to fight against the strong network effects of the Windows application culture.

Oh Boy (1)

Chris whatever (980992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585367)

thats' like comparing a chevrolet aveo and a lamborghini in terms of speed.

I'm loving all the redundant mods (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585379)

I guess thats what we get for commenting on an article where the natural response is "duh!"

Re:I'm loving all the redundant mods (1)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585751)

Meanwhile in related news.......the slashdot community commented with. "ummm ....DUHHHHH".

Boot time is not a benchmark (3, Insightful)

jmerelo (216716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585399)

In what workload would you include boot? Unless you keep booting up and down all day, boot time has nothing to do with performance.

Re:Boot time is not a benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585579)

Of course measuring boot time is a benchmark. And as far as it being something to do with performance, it's the first performance example a users sees each day he uses his computer. When you're just sitting there waiting for your computer to become useable every second seems like an age. Boot time matters, plain and simple.

Bullshit test. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585661)

In what workload would you include boot? Unless you keep booting up and down all day, boot time has nothing to do with performance.

I agree.

Using the same, custom-built PC test bed loaded with, alternatively, Ubuntu 8.10 and Windows Vista Business, Ubuntu proved to be a quicker installation, scored higher in benchmark testing, managed wireless connectivity easier and booted slightly faster than Vista.

It was a completely biased test. They were comparing Vista Business with Ubuntu! No wonder Ubuntu beat it!

Compare Ubuntu with Vista Home, then I will take the test seriously.

I quickly found out that my WiFi doesn't work (0, Redundant)

hirschma (187820) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585401)

The problem is - pretty basic stuff doesn't work on what is the slickest Ubuntu so far.

For example, Wi-Fi - The driver for a last-gen Intel card just doesn't work very well. Can't connect on 802.11a at all, and 802.11g runs at under 1Mb/sec. Not very good.

I understand that the limitation is probably in the kernel, but it doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu still isn't quite there yet.

FYI, if anyone has had a good experience with ANY WiFi chipset that's available on a Mini PCIe card, please let me know!

Re:I quickly found out that my WiFi doesn't work (2, Informative)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585545)

My Dell Inspiron came with a Broadcom mini pci-e NIC, didn't work unless I used ndiswrapper. I swapped it for an Intel 4965, and it works much better. Good range, good support (2.6.24 supports it, 2.6.27 supports it even better (packet injection, LED working etc etc). So, ever since 8.04 my wlan has worked like a charm. Strangely, when I run geekbench (32-bit) I get: Overall Geekbench Score: 3197 |||||||||||| Submitting results; this might take a minute or two. Submission failed! Couldn't connect to host. This on a T8300 cpu, 4GB 667 ram.

I realize this is /. (1)

Genocaust (1031046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585409)

I know Vista hate is pretty rampant here, but as numerous others have pointed out -- how is this news? I, like others, run Linux on my older, slower hardware that doesn't or barely meets Windows minimum requirements (any Windows, 9x, XP, etc) already. So, how is it news that Linux boots/runs faster on the same hardware when it already does that on outdated hardware?

No difference at all (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585433)

Linux remains a huge fat mess.

Until someone seriously grabs hold of cleaning up the file system, making APIs that are worth a shit, and having some unified platform stability in things like package management, and decent developer links so people can make a product for Linux, not 999 flavours with all the nasty baggage, and when Linux starts being a user oriented OS, not something where you tell the user to go fix it themselves if they dont like your half broken borked software.

Seriously, its still badly lagging other desktop OSs and new Linux releases, while making headway, don't fix the underlying issues. And hint, if you can make the netbook market a hit, it should be a serious lesso in humility, because you should be beating the living shit out of MS here and are not. MSI have a Linux return rate that holds a lesson for anyone awake.

Did they fix Pulse audio, or is it still an embarrasing pile of dung?

Linux Faster Than Windows At Long Last? Huh? (0, Redundant)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585439)

"At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?"

Has there been a version of Linux that hasn't out performed Windows from the same era?

Has the market ever said, "Gee, it's zippier, let's move over en masse!"?

I think that might be your answer.

Games (1)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585453)

But will it play Crysis... This is the most pressing concern for the Linux community if they really want to expand their userbase. Playing the games right out of the box.

Games (2, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585497)

I'm a Mac guy but I've got a PC for gaming, running XP. I would _love_ to switch to Ubuntu but, unless I'm mistaken (and please! feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), in order to play my PC games I'd need to run an emulator or boot to XP which would defeat the entire purpose - the machine is used solely for gaming so why use a different system and then boot/emulate back to the system I already have? If Ubuntu ever enabled me to play my PC games natively, I'd ditch XP entirely and become a happy Mac/Ubuntu geek.

DOS is still faster than both (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585521)

DOS is still faster than both, but who cares? People don't pick DOS over Ubuntu for the same reason they don't pick Ubuntu over Windows: It can't run the programs they need to run, it's less usable, etc.

Re: Survey: what doesn't outperforms Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585547)

Guess Ubuntu 8.10 would lose, once installed
on this one [whatthehack.org]

Big fat hairy deal. (0, Troll)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585553)

My old mid-sixties double-sided slideruler outperforms Vista. Now what was your point again?

At what point does this start to make a difference (0, Flamebait)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585567)

At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?

Never. Never ever. Not until there is one cohesive Linux distribution to rule them all. Even its measly 1% marketshare is spread across various distros that have no standardization across the board. People who actually want to get paid for their work don't look at Linux and say, "Damn, that's a platform I want to develop for!" Not until Linux community makes it less of a nightmare to develop and support their platform.

Now I can not run my killer Windows apps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585575)

...even more quickly!

I love Linux, and I would kill to use it as a primary desktop, but at the end of the day I'm still tied to XP and some of its killer apps. I'd say the answer to "At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?" has a lot more to do with application selection and compatibility than it does with speed.

8.10 not so smooth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585601)

Word of warning ...

I run 3 64-bit boxes [two intel x64 and an amd64], and have been running them since the 7.xx stream, through 8.04 to now 8.10.

On the amd64 box it won't boot with the new 2.6.27-7 kernel [even with yesterdays update]. My laptop [one of the intel x64s] boots fine, but now when I come out of suspend the ath_pci device needs to be restarted [e.g. rmmod/modprobe] before it'll work again.

I'd make sure you keep your 2.6.24-21 kernels around if you plan on upgrading.

Other than that though, 8.10 has worked like a charm. I imagine these kernel snafus will be ironed out shortly.

When is this really about the "marketplace"? (1)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585631)

Most companies I know either use SuSe or Redhat or if they don't care/want/need support they use Debian.

Primarily Ubuntu has gotten the node from admins and developers as the install of choice for their desktop not their servers. At least in everyone I have talked to.

I don't see a big corporate adoption factor for Ubuntu yet. But that begs the big question is what am I missing?

Someone have some links to business adoption of Ubuntu?

Whatever Linux version I run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25585655)

I use Xfce...light and fast.

Idiotic Editorial Comments (2, Informative)

Ralish (775196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25585743)

Let me be blunt: timothy's editorial observation shook me to my very core. An operating system released a few days ago with an advanced compositing window manager with hardware acceleration enabled looks prettier than a 7 year old OS with no compositing window manager, little to no hardware acceleration of the desktop, and no fancy 3D desktop effects. Unbelievable, who would have thought this would be the case?

I've thought long and hard about this, but I think I can deliver an observation almost on par with timothy's: Windows XP looks prettier than Windows 95.

Seriously, can we stop with the idiotic editorial comments appended to Slashdot stories? This story was stupid enough for a variety of reasons without the editor adding his personal touch.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?