×

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 Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the such-things-need-more-context-than-substance dept.

Operating Systems 781

twitter writes "Recent and controversial benchmarks for Windows 7 leave an important question unanswered: 'Is it faster than GNU/Linux?' Here, at last, is a benchmark that pits Ubuntu, Vista and Windows 7 against each other on the same modern hardware. From install time to GUI efficiency, Ubuntu beats Windows and is often twice as fast. Where Windows 7 is competitive, the difference is something the average user would not notice. The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

781 comments

And... (3, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742777)

Queue douchebag saying its only a beta.

Re:And... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742835)

What about benching it against the Hardy Heron beta? Or the latest svn of every package used during testing? What about a story that matters?

Re:And... (4, Informative)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742901)

RTFA it was tested agains Ubuntu 8.04, 8.10 and 9.04. In both x32 and x64 flavors.

"Ubuntu 9.04 we used the daily build from January 22nd."

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743323)

Probably even dafter . Neither is finished, so you don't know what extra logging or debug they're running (well, with Linux you could but you probably can't be bothered).

You also don't know how tuned they are - the dev teams may not have finished all the performance tweaking in the beta, so yes, you get some numbers but unless you want to run the beta in production they are meaningless when it comes to production.

To be fair to TFA though they acknowledge this and are pretty clear that you can't read much into the beta numbers.

Re:And... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742877)

1. You mean "Cue douchebag saying it's only a beta."

2. It's only a beta.

3. The benchmarks described here suck.

4. I want to love Ubuntu, but the enticing puppy love of the first install and autoconfiguration inevitably wears off, and UI usability always ends the relationship.

Re:And... (-1, Troll)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743217)

yes the benchmarks do suck, they should add the following benchmarks to event it out a bit. 1. How long it takes to load GTA IV. 2. How long it takes to load MS Word. 3. How long it takes to compile a large project with MS Visual Studio 2005.

Re:And... (0, Troll)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743389)

You can tag this flamebait or troll, but as soon as those 3 items at least match the speed they are in windows, I will switch to ubuntu in a second.

Re:And... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742893)

Don't you mean "Cue", asshole?

Re:And... (4, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743329)

Naw - there's more than one. So you have to line them up single file and deal with them one at a time.

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

0prime (792333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743171)

Quit calling the article writers douchebags, they put a lot of work into this test.

FTFA:

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

But then again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743231)

But then again, Ubunghole is only beta-quality software, too.

+Troll (5, Insightful)

GermanG (462824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742809)

Can I mod this story as troll?

I'm a linux user but this story is anything but serious benchmarking.

Re:+Troll (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742975)

i dont know about you but i wont use any OS that takes more than 7 clicks to install

Re:+Troll (1, Insightful)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743147)

Seriously, and if it takes more that 1 GB of my 500 GB hard drive then there's something wrong. Why don't they benchmark some more important timings like how long it takes to shutdown, how long it takes to paste text in an email and how long it takes to run a disk defrag.

Re:+Troll (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743023)

I'm a linux user but this story is anything but serious benchmarking.

Yeah, they left out almost all distros.

Re:+Troll (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743067)

I read the headline and thought installing Ubuntu would wipe a Windows 7 partition.

Re:+Troll (4, Informative)

lucif3r (1391761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743091)

What's wrong? I mean the summary leads you directly to the conclusion you need to be coming to here:

"The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user."

Seriously, that's good enough for me. Don't even need to read the article now...

Re:+Troll (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743141)

Personal anecdotes: I have a Q6600 / 8GB 800MHz RAM / 512MB Geforce 8600GT. I used 8.10 as my primary desktop for a few months. Now I'm using Win 7 beta. Of the two, I strongly prefer Win 7, and one of the reasons for the switch was the unacceptable slowness of the X-windows GUI and all the glitches still present in Firefox 3.0.5.

p.s. I definitely plan to give 9.04 a spin when it comes out, and in the meantime I'll keep using 8.10 in a virtual machine. I can't live without it, but I can't live with it on my desktop.

Re:+Troll (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743227)

No, not troll, but flamebait. Because if someone asks "What has Gates done PERSONALLY to make slashdotters so hateful of him?" and you list several very good, well though out reasons [slashdot.org], it's flamebait.

So no, this story isn't a troll, it's flamebait. Like my comment was (I liked Captain Splendid's take on it, "Mods on crack").

Mouse Clicking (5, Funny)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743311)

Hey I have carpel tunnel and mouse clicking is a very important benchmark you insensitive clout.

I can best them both. (4, Funny)

Essequemodeia (1030028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742811)

Because I can snap both installation DVDs in half, I submit that I am clearly more powerful than either OS. Not even close, really.

Re:I can best them both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742999)

I know my start-up time in the morning (as in from the time I wake up until I'm out of bed and functioning) is still slower than the boot time of any of those operating systems.

So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742831)

Is anybody actually surprised by this? That's what I thought.

--
Can you say piece of shit [mailto]?

Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742853)

Lets benchmark a BETA against a Linux distro. I'm waiting for the Linux fanbois to eat this one up.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743263)

i don't know, i've always naturally assumed that ubuntu was far faster than windows, if only because of the lack of need for antivirus software
on my two-year-old laptop (core solo processor, 2gb RAM), Windows XP crawls along, whereas Ubuntu 8.10 with full desktop effects, Screelets widgets and AWN dock is probably more than twice as fast

Wrong (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742867)

My unpatched Windows system can get rooted AT LEAST ten times faster than Ubuntu. Take that, Open Source!

But what Linux doesn't have (1, Troll)

Chas (5144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742873)

That heapin' helpin' of "we own you" butt-hurt that Microsoft can smack down on any given Windows/MS Product user.

Without that, most users might go absolutely insane from all the power available to them!

Right? RIGHT?

Layman? (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742879)

From TFA:

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.

(Emphasis added.)

Not sure what kind of laymen the authors hang out with, but all the laymen I know couldn't tell you the difference between a CPU and a hard drive, or the difference between GHz and GB ... much less figure out what "L3 cache" is!

Re:Layman? (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743053)

I think they meant "lame man's terms"--as in geeky, lame, slashdot-reading... um. Maybe not.

Re:Layman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743113)

Good point. The author used that term because this article is rubbish.

Is that with Virus Software installed? (5, Insightful)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742883)

I always just figured the speed was gained from not having to run virus software all the time.

With virus software installed on Windows 7 ubuntu would kill it even more.

Re:Is that with Virus Software installed? (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743107)

With virus software installed on Windows 7 ubuntu would kill it even more.

I'm not sure this counts as killing. I mean, 73 seconds for booting?
Hands up everyone who got it down to less than 30, any distro.

Re:Is that with Virus Software installed? (2, Informative)

LifeWithJustin (969206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743153)

Wait... oh never mind --

I'll just leave you with this: A badly administrated box is a badly administrated box. If you honestly don't think you need to be checking your box for virii ... you sir need to stay off my network.

Re:Is that with Virus Software installed? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743159)

To offset that, I run BOINC client at all times, just so my ubuntu isn't too fast. Otherwise I could get too much shock at work (where I have windows).

Well its software that counts, and this proved (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743287)

that Ubuntu runs benchmarks faster? A copy file is faster? Certainly things that the average user will never care about. Even my parents leave their machines on 24x7 so boot times matter?

Really, I don't care which is more efficient at booting or copying, if Ubuntu cannot run the software I want all of its performance benefits are lost

Re:Is that with Virus Software installed? (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743377)

I haven't run always-on antivirus on my windows gaming machine in 4 years. The best antivirus is being smart about what you do on the computer, not running some piece of software.

better question - Windows 7, will it blend? (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742907)

or how about will it float?

As far as speed goes, let history be your guide or do you think this is the first time in Microsofts history they came out with an OS faster than the previous releases?

LoB

Install time... (1)

thorntonmark (1223742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742915)

Who cares?

Re:Install time... (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742967)

The same people that are likely to be counting the number of mouse-clicks it takes to perform a default install.

Re:Install time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743019)

so true; 90+% of pc's these days must surely be preinstalled by the manufacturer so..

Re:Install time... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743095)

Well once upon a time, when people compared linux to windows they bashed linux because it's hard to install.
Now someone points that linux can be installed faster and easier than windows.

Re:Install time... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743201)

Yeah, it used to be that Linux got slagged for serious stuff.
Now it's down to how things are "inconsistent" or how it's not
easy to get software in the manner of your choosing (rather
than using the method provided by the OS).

It's like being trapped in a 50's TV show or "Pleasantville".

Oh no, K3B doesn't "fit in" well enough with GNOME.

Now start screeching like pod people.

Nevermind if it's a better mousetrap...

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742921)

Great.

I admin a farm of Linux servers, with a few clustered with Veritas HA. I've been running Linux since Slackware. I'd be using Linux on my desktop except for 3 major apps that I need.

1- CAD. I need TurboCAD. Don't tell me about QCAD, etc. I know TurboCAD and don't get AutoCad, so all these AutoCAD clones don't cut it.
2- Video editing. Super simple video editing.
3- iTunes. I have a family with 4 iPod Nanos. We buy a lot of video off iTunes.

I'm not looking for somebody to write me a fre app to cover these needs, I'd PAY for these. I already buy TurboCAD. I'd pay for a Linux version, or a CAD program as simple as TC.

I have been searching and searching for viable solutions for 2 years on and off.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742923)

Ok, before anyone starts i'm not twitter bashing. I was already offended by the summary before i noticed it was him.

That being said, what is the POINT of statements like "where windows is competetive, the average user wouldn't notice".

HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.

Here's what they will notice:
It's not microsoft.
it's not what they have at work.
It doesn't run everything.
And instructions for installing stuff don't work.

Yes linux is faster in a lot of things. 90% of people don't care. And 90% of linux users acknolwedge this, and that linux is not for everyone and cannot replace desktop at this time.

So yeah, nice statistics, but cut off the flaimbait. Especially given the benchmarks are utter crap.

Posted AC because I dont' want to login on a library computer, and slashdot took away the "put user details in post form to post as name but not actually log in".

Re:Really? (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743261)

HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.

Gentoo boots in about 25 seconds, while all kinds of weird text floats through the screen.

Meanwhile, on the same machine, Vista takes more than 40 seconds to actually show the boot screen. Before that, it's blank. First time I turned it on, I thought I have to bring it back to the store. (The laptop came with Vista preinstalled.)

And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26742955)

The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user.

Okay, but this is almost meaningless. Tell me instead, how much value would the average Windows user get from GNU/Linux?

Re:And? (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743239)

The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user.

Okay, but this is almost meaningless. Tell me instead, how much value would the average Windows user get from GNU/Linux?

It really can do the basics, is FREE and isn't prone to viral infestation.

It's suitable for a lot of people, they just need to
get over their Microsoft vendorlock fixation.

Incidentally, Macs have the same exact benefits minus the FREE part.

Heh. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742957)

"Measured in seconds. Less is better." That would be fewer.

Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD? One could argue that just means Windows 7 installation is bloated, but that still invalidates the benchmarking from a real "serious" perspective, other than the fact that Windows installs more. Great, now we'll say that Half-Life 2 is bloated because it takes longer to install than Half-Life?

And, were Ubuntu faster - which I don't actually doubt all that much - it still doesn't get over the usual gripes people have about switching to Linux. This or that application doesn't work on Linux or there isn't a comparable one (my favorite to mention is Sibelius's music notation software, aptly named Sibelius [or Coda Music's Finale, but I hate Finale]), it's not as easy to use, hardware, etc. Some are not quite valid anymore, some are still valid concerns. Either way, simple benchmarking isn't going to convince most "average users." What do they care, as long as it works and is easy to use?

I'd rather see some "average user usage" benchmarks. That is, see how easy someone finds Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu to use for actual normal tasks in an office. See if OpenOffice (all software, not just word processing) actual can compete with Microsoft Office (and see if it's slower, due to Java?). Web browsing, including using Silverlight and installing plugins and everything. That'd be a test that would help the "Linux really IS a good alternative," more than "My Linux machine boots 5 seconds faster - see, you should switch from Windows!" does.

Re:Heh. (5, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743059)

Another note.

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.

What kind of comment is that? Excusing a "slow boot time" with "Linux has always been rather slow to boot." Of course, then we get other benchmarks where it says that Ubuntu betas Windows in booting. IMO, this just goes to show that benchmarks on something that is so hardware dependent can be really silly. That and the user's bias is coming out in defending Linux by saying it's always been slow to boot. If Windows was the one that was so slow, it probably would have been "Windows has always been infamously slow to boot, and Windows 7 is no change." Or whatever.

Also... measuring mouse clicks on an install process? What?

And ... comparing the amount if gigabytes and saying that less space used after a fresh install is necessarily better? Becuase, as we all know, a 6 GB installation of an OS is absolutely horrendously huge, given the exorbitant cost of disk storage these days. Man, 1/166th of my 1TB drive gone because Windows! [/sarcasm]

Re:Heh. (4, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743351)

the user's bias is coming out in defending Linux by saying it's always been slow to boot

That's not how I read it. The author didn't seem to be defending Linux with that statement. It was more of a "as we would have expected" statement. He was acknowledging that Linux lost on that metric.

measuring mouse clicks on an install process? What?

The authors seem to acknowledge that this metric was just for fun. The caption for that data says "A bit of a flippant one" and in the intro they say "We also, just for the heck of it, kept track of how many mouse clicks it took to install each OS."

comparing the amount if gigabytes and saying that less space used after a fresh install is necessarily better?

Yes. All other things being equal, a smaller install size is better (more space for other things). Whether or not this particular metric matters to you depends, of course. On a typical desktop machine it might not matter. On some other machines it might. The install size also affects other things people might care about (e.g. how long it takes to do a drive image or backup; how long it takes to scan or seek on the drive; ...).

Re:Heh. (1)

blazerw (47739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743079)

Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD?

From the article:

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.

Re:Heh. (3, Insightful)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743189)

You get Ubuntu on CD or DVD, and one or more office packages is included on either.

With even the CD, you can get full OpenOffice and development tools, so there's at least that in Ubuntu's favour. Windows is a gigantic installation which gives you a notepad, some casual games and a file manager, more or less.

Re:Heh. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743321)

A lot of stuff is included in Windows. I don't know how much of it is OS and how much of it is extra software. For one thing, there are a ton of administration GUI type things. Ubuntu is pretty good with GUIs, as well as some other Linux distro's. And I realize that a lot of Linux dist's come with server capabilities as well.

I think Windows gives you a bit more than notepad/file manager/casual games, though. It does include a web browser, the aforementioned administration tools/GUIs, a lot of networking administration stuff, drivers, etc. That would be an interesting breakdown, though, it is making me curious and want to go look at my win7 VM :)

Re:Heh. (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743193)

Unfortunately, the kinds of important numbers you're looking for are way too subjective to make a good measure of an OS. Things like user familiarity with OS and applications (does the user already know and love Office/OpenOffice) etc are going to significantly affect the outcome.

But I agree that "my OS installed two minutes faster with three less mouse clicks" is a ridiculous measure of "performance"

Re:Heh. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743259)

I agree that they are way too subjective, but it would make and interesting set of ... hmmm, case studies.

It'd be interesting to try it on people that have never used a computer before, actually, as well as people who have, say, only used Linux (do they exist?) or only used Windows and see how the switch goes.

Bravo! (5, Funny)

PhasmatisApparatus (1086395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742959)

Clearly Microsoft has been listening to us. Vista takes up a whole 8.2GB, while Windows 7 takes up a mere 7.9GB. I can't wait to get a crack at this smaller, slimmer version of Windows!

Re:Bravo! (2, Funny)

fluch (126140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743045)

But it is still beta and untill it is released they still have a lot of time to fill in at least 0.3GB of useless stuff, most likely even more than that... ;-)

Install time? (4, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742969)

Why would anyone care about install time? The only interesting part of the install is how much of your hardware works out of the box, and how much of it can be made to work easily.

Of course installation is the easiest feature to review, but this is 2009 - there is nothing interesting about OS installation anymore.

Bottom line.. (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742973)

Ubuntu/Linux is hands down simply more usable after installation.

w/Windows, you are still looking to install Office, as an example.

Re:Bottom line.. (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743103)

MS would get sued if they bundled too much software, and you know it. If MS included Office in windows the first people to line up for the digital lynching would be Linux fanboys.

Value (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742985)

Value is an entirely subjective concept and it will vary wildly from person to person. For many people, a computer with a free OS that can't run their favorite program has much less value than a computer with a paid OS that can. The same could be said for people who don't want to learn a new interface or people who don't actually want to take the time to instal their own OS.

Re:Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743099)

The same could be said for people who don't want to learn a new interface or people who don't actually want to take the time to instal their own OS.

These people are less valuable?

Re:Value (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743185)

I gree.
You can't say greater value if is doesn't do what you needed it to do.
Some people just don't realize that Value doesn't equal money.

Time for me to upgrade (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742987)

I've been running an older version of Mandriva. Its startup tume is decidedly slower than XP's, although the XP box at work slows to a crawl when Netware and antivirus kick in. Some things XP seems faster at, some things Mandriva seems faster at (installation of Mandriva and all its apps takes 1/4 the time of a bare bones XP install)

I guess it's time to switch from Mandriva to Ubantu, I'm about ready to build a new computer anyway.

Re:Time for me to upgrade (4, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743211)

I guess it's time to switch from Mundriva to Ubantu, I'm about ready to build a new computer anyway.

There, fixed that for you.

What sold me.. (5, Insightful)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743001)

Is the gaming benchmarks.

I've been slowly switching from XP to Ubuntu on my work laptop, but I am still stuck with XP at home. I just play too many PC games to give up XP. I really don't care if it boots slower than Ubuntu, or takes longer to shut down. What matters to me is actually using the PC.

Benchmarks? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743009)

That only say that one performed better than the other in a very limited set of tests. Not say exactly that one is better than the other (if so, maybe KolibriOS [kolibrios.org] could wipe badly both of them in most of those benchmarks).

"Better" is another thing, and depend on more criteria, like included or available software, security, user friendliness or things like that, and there ubuntu could have the lead or not (and all of those could be very subjective).

But if you can run something in any of them, and need extreme performance, that testing really worth something.

Well that's it, I'm sold! (0, Troll)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743043)

Ubuntu requires so many less mouse clicks to install than Windows, it's just amazing. It also shuts down 4 seconds faster, which will really boost my performance and work flow.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743063)

Give me a break. I'm on Windows.

Windows 7 Beta Build? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743075)

Wouldn't this be a checked/debug build? I imagine you're going to see some performance hit to some extent...the whole comparison is idiotic. Run a real benchmark when Windows 7 is released, until then you are wasting your and our time.

Benchmarks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743093)

What if I measure benchmarks in time taken to defragment my hard drive?

Just sayin...

Seriously? (4, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743111)

Installation time? *Mouse clicks* to install? Seriously? Those have got to be some of the most useless benchmarks I've ever seen.

Startup and shutdown time are marginally more useful benchmarks, but still not really very important unless you're talking about embedded devices, which the desktop version of Windows 7 (obviously) isn't even designed for.

The file copy benchmarks really didn't find a clear winner either, and that was the only arguably significant benchmark. Or are there really desktop users that spend all day copying files between hard drives and USB drives?

I really didn't care all that much about the outcome. I don't have an emotional investment in Windows or Ubuntu, but this was nothing but a pissing contest from someone who wanted to make some poorly constructed graphs showing that their favorite OS beat another OS (and it didn't even do that! Windows won on a few of the tests!)

--Jeremy

Re:Seriously? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743299)

Installation time? *Mouse clicks* to install? Seriously? Those have got to be some of the most useless benchmarks I've ever seen.

Yet these are the sort of things that are immediately brought up if you suggest straying off the reservation. ...and yes "the number of mouseclicks to install" WILL infact
matter if the average Windows user is ever in a position to
(re)install their OS themselves.

Although the number of mouse clicks doesn't adequately capture
the magnitude of the situation.

Re:Seriously? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743313)

Installation time is a good indication of system complexity. The more complex the install, the more likely something is to not work correctly. At least that's been my experience with every install from Win95-WinXP. Mouse clicks is interesting. I think the last OSX install I did was three mouse clicks. More importantly, they were at the beginning, so you are free to go off and do other things and not baby sit "next" buttons.

oh well if we're going to do that.... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743121)

My P3 windows ME laptop can boot faster than both of them. It can render explorer objects waaaaay faster not to mention open aps faster and do basically everything faster. The GUI is so much simpler and faster especially. Does that means windows ME is awesome? NO! Speed isn't everything. It has to be stable, efficient, and able to run a large variety of software. Linux is stable and efficient but can't run 90% of software out there and Windows XP/Vista/7 is relatively unstable and bulky and inefficient but it can run almost anything. I don't care if I can install and open Microsoft Office on a windows 7 system if it takes me 5 minutes to boot and log in and I don't care if linux boots and opens gui objects crazy fast if I can't install Starcraft 2 on it. The moral of the story is people need to stop saying "This OS is faster so it's better, end of story." You have to look at all aspects of them like stability, price, speed, security, useability, compatability, etc.
But I do have to add that OF COURSE WINDOWS 7 IS SLOWER, IT HAS TO FIRE UP FREAKING DX10 JUST TO RENDER MY FREAKING DESKTOP AND EVERY WINDOW'S EDGES! WTF WERE THEY THINKING?! I DON'T CARE HOW PRETTY IT IS, I HAVE WORK TO DO!!!!! But other than that, it's kinda a toss up when you consider everything.

Re:oh well if we're going to do that.... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743155)

Well and you also still have the option of turning Aero off, so it's not using DX10.

So web surfing and documents will be faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743135)

but can I play Fallout 3 on this amazingly fast operating system?

RE: Even if true, doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743137)

Fast is good and everything but:

The speed doesn't matter in terms of playing games (linux obviously falls short).
The speed doesn't matter in terms of syncing my iPod Touch since I can't do it (and go figure the only decent DRM free store in Canada other than eMusic is now iTunes.)
The speed doesn't matter until I have tversity streaming and transcoding easily (tried alternatives but they are not as good).

Let face it. Linux for what I have used (mainly Ubuntu) is great. It is making great strides in terms an making it easier for the end user to use a linux OS. But the fact is, the majority of users (outside of emailing/surfing) will need these things to work easily & well. And in terms of gaming, having devlopers support linux. And until then, Linux could be 10 times faster yet still be useless in the eyes of the majority of users.

Dubious indeed (2, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743165)

Unless something has changed from XP to Win7, this line has me scratching my head:

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.

Anyone who has ever used WinXP knows that you can't really do anything until all the services and task bar things have loaded. You still have several seconds (20-30 on my machine) once the desktop appears before you can actually do anything.

Shadow Copies (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743199)

They mentioned a delay in deleting - could this be shadow copies being made? Actually in general indexing and VSS slow things down a fair bit, are the equivalent services (or daemons I suppose) turned on for their tests?

It's occasionally a handy feature, life saving in Server 2003, but with Vista anyways, for some reason they've decided to not allow the user to determine when to take copies. Like I'd like to be able to do nightly copies; I don't need one every time the system installs a program or whatever.

GUI Efficiency? (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743209)

From install time to GUI efficiency, Ubuntu beats Windows and is often twice as fast.

Does this mean that opening a taskbar menu in GNOME for the first time post-boot no longer locks the UI for several seconds while it populates the menu, as it does in Ubuntu 8.10 (GNOME 2.22 IIRC)? The fact that the UI element most people will use first every time they boot their computer takes an age to load (in UI response terms) in Ubuntu seems like the very antithesis of an efficient UI to me.

I confess I didn't RTFA so if this is mentioned and the summary simply skipped that inconvenient truth I apologise now.

I recently spent 6+ hours just installing Ubuntu (2, Informative)

kentrel (526003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743221)

I have no idea why it took so long. It would freeze on each step, even just after selecting trivial things like keyboard and languages. A google search revealed this was a common problem. After about 30-40 minutes of waiting I finally got to the partition section where bizarrely there was no option to create an Extended Partition, so I had to cancel the install and use the Partition program manually. Why???

Then it would be a repeat of all the old steps as I restarted the install sequences, taking about 30-40 minutes each time. Several times there was a new bizarre problem at the partition stage, which caused me to restart several times. After installing I had no large resolutions even though I have a major brand graphics card. A Google search and a download later, that problem was solved but no dual monitor support yet. A google search revealed it was a pain in the ass and I don't have the heart for it yet.

I've installed various distros bunches of times but never had anything as slow as Ubuntu. Obviously the install program is buggy or I have some hardware conflict, but I've installed windows (A LOT) and never had that problem

Now that I've got Ubuntu up and running I should say that I'm very impressed and its running nicely, though it is still slower than windows at graphics intensive operations.

Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743229)

What frame rate can you get in Mass Effect on Ubuntu? Oh wait...

Twice as fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743241)

...a thousandth of the software support.

But can they measure responsiveness? (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743267)

On my old PC laptop, Ubuntu gets very unresponsive, even with every combination of ATI drivers I use. Both Windows XP and Windows Vista boot as fast, if not faster, on it than Ubuntu did. In fact, Windows Vista was generally more responsive during normal use. There were plenty of times where Vista could easily handle stuff like Firefox with Flash and some other stuff open, but Ubuntu would slow down to a crawl.

Mod me down if you want, but I've found Windows to be faster and more responsive out of the box, especially against modern Linux distributions.

Has to be said... (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743283)

People use applications, not operating systems.

It doesn't matter how fast it is if it doesn't run the software that people want. That's the biggest thing that holds up Linux on the desktop.

If Linux for the desktop is ever going to really be a viable option, someone needs to come out with a distro with the goal of, "absolutely, positively, 100% Windows Compatible" via Wine or similar technologies.

That distro would conquer the world.

(Cue people giving the argument, "but Microsoft will just change Windows". Yes, they might, but that doesn't affect the installed base of applications, nor does it affect the myriad third party applications, and if there was a viable target, third party companies would ensure compatability.)

I love Ubuntu (2, Insightful)

SeanBlader (1354199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743303)

I really like Ubuntu, it is fast, it's useful, and it's hugely effective on older hardware. But if you're a power user on Windows you're suddenly a newblet on Ubuntu. Even if you're not afraid of mucking around in text config files that doesn't mean that you can use your tablet as a notepad like you can with Window Journal, it doesn't mean you can connect your computer to the internet through your 3G phone when you aren't near wifi, it doesn't mean you can use the nifty fingerprint reader to login to your system, it doesn't mean you can login to the hidden SSID secure login encrypted access wifi network at your school or office, and it doesn't mean you can play Blu-ray discs on your brand new high tech system with Ubuntu. Don't get me wrong, if Evolution worked 80% as well as Outlook, I'd have switched my work computer to Ubuntu months ago, just to spite Norton Internet Security 2007 and our IT guys who insist on not caring when NIS shuts down outlook, forcing it to restart. In the end, I just need a few things to get better in Ubuntu and I could see Microsoft cease to exist almost entirely, but it's just not there yet. Sure I'd love to help, but I'm a interaction guy, not a driver programmer. And if I was writing drivers, someone would surely kick my ass for doing it poorly.

Video, for once? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743319)

I have never seen a Linux benchmark that shows videocard performance, unless we're talking about shitty integrated cards like Intel's recently open-sourced ones.
It constantly surprises me how much smoother Windows' GUI is, not to mention framerates in XviD movies and, lord forbid, games.
It's so bad that even open-source games using OpenGL are noticeably worse.

Nice link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743339)

Interesting link to twitter's lame "look at all these links, i must be telling the truth" journal. No agenda here, no sir.

I wonder if the Slashdot editors would accept a story submission about, say, undersea monsters or the reproductive cycle of the Malaysian Furry Scamper Moth with a link to this? [slashdot.org]. It would probably get rejected outright.

The perception of speed is all that counts (4, Interesting)

caseih (160668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743349)

This will probably get me a troll mod, but I have to say that it doesn't matter how much faster Linux is than Windows in raw speed. All that matters is what the user perceives. And I have to say it doesn't look that great for Ubuntu or Fedora or any modern linux distro right now (but that's improving!). Right now I have Fedora 10 on a brand new dual core AMD 4550e (low-wattage, but still) with 4 GB of ram.

Let's start with the GUI since that is most visible. Without compiz, Fedora's Gnome GUI is quite fast, but to the user feels slow. You can see widgets redraw and reorder themselves. When you size a window you can see the contents adjusting. You can see tearing of the edges of window decorations. When moving the windows around you often get tearing. These artifacts actually make the desktop feel slower even though it really isn't at all.

With compiz-fusion on, things get a little bit better. But still resizing a window is very painful, especially one with a lot of widgets in it. Moving a window around is usually fast enough, though. I believe compiz's rendering engine is synced to screen refresh which helps a lot here (OS X did this for years). Still thought the system often just feels slow. Windows take some time to pop up some times. Sometimes I get a window of garbage (instead of a popup menu) and then the menu appears in it. Sometimes the effects (fade in, fade out), are delayed. Fancier effects like beam-in, beam-out (kind of cool and makes windows users take notice!) work well sometimes and then sometimes stutter or are delayed.

Maybe this is related to the recently-talked about I/O kernel bug, but my Fedora 10 box stutters all the time. My cron script that renders my background Earth picture with the proper clouds and day/night lighting will cause video and audio to halt for a complete second *every* time it is run. This never happened on my older, single processor Athlon with Fedora 8. PulseAudio also seems to cause audio to stutter at the slightest hint of any i/o. In this machine, anyway, with Fedora 10 and compiz-fusion, my Gnome desktop is very disappointing from the perception of performance pov. In raw speed I'm sure it beats Windows Vista or 7. But when you're frustrated with the inability to play back video and audio without skips, and the stuttering and delays in rendering GUI elements, none of that matters.

Now use a Vista computer with decent hardware with the effects turned on. Everything is silky smooth. Window resizes, moving windows (even with translucent blurring). Popups are timely and smooth. The system just feels more responsive than my Fedora Gnome desktop. Things like audio and video have a high priority and never stutter.

How can we improve this? Several ways. First GTK with client windows goes a long ways to solving the resize problem. Rather than having asynchronous messages being passed to each and every widget's window by X11, we only deal with events to the main window. Sub windows are all managed by GTK internally, eliminating the sync problem. This should hit mainstream soon when some corner cases are taken care of. From what I've read, KDE users might already enjoy this as Qt is supposed to already do client windows on X11. Then we need to get pulseaudio fixed somehow. And the kernel bug. Development on compiz after the merger with Beryl seems to be stalled as well. Seems like 80% of the work is done, but the last 20% always struggles to get done, especially in open source software. Finally I hope that issues regarding RGBA and ARGB in GTK in particular get addressed (if they still exist). Then hopefully more apps (KDE already can do this) will use ARGB visuals appropriately.

Applications (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743355)

From a users view, it's not about the OS as much as it is the applications.

And since they run different apps, its hard to honestly review 'speed'.

FreeBSD (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743385)

Should have been fair and included FreeBSD in the comparison.

( in my personal experience, its noticeably faster then any Linux distro on the same hardware, )

Real Startup/Shutdown times. (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26743387)

Windows 7;
  22 seconds to login.
  7 seconds from login to desktop.
  15 seconds to shutdown.

Ubuntu 8.04 (8.10 is full of bugs and unusable);

24 seconds to login.
9 seconds from login to desktop.

Using 1-one thousand count.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...