Ubuntu vs Vist

8/8/2019 Ubuntu vs Vist

1/28

Latest News Podcast Features Distros Code Apps Web Hardware

digg it

193diggs

4

reddit

Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7Posted at 12:50pm on Tuesday February 3rd 2009

In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users,but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real-world tests? We put Ubuntu 8.10, Windows Vista and Windows 7through 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 theysay it's faster, is it just in their heads, or is Microsoft really making big strides forward? And, perhaps mostimportantly, when Linux benchmarkers show us how screamingly fast ext4 is compared to ext3, how well dothose 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 giveall the operating systems room to perform to their max. Our test machine packed an Intel Core i7 920, which inlayman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache. It also had 6GB ofRAM, 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 t ime was measured from the moment the computer was turned on untilwe reached a working desktop.The same computer hardware was used for all tests, and all operating systems were installed fresh for thisarticle.We used the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, simply because Windows 7 wasprovided 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 atleast 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 updatedwith all available patches before any other tests were performed.Our journalistic friends have informed us that Windows Vista (and, presumably, Windows 7 too) hastechnology to increase the speed of the system over time as it learns to cache programs intelligently. Italso allows users to use flash drives to act as temporary storage to boost speed further. None of our testsare 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 thenaveraged.

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

Don't miss: Frequently asked questions for Linux newbies

marked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

8 11/8/2009 7

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.


2/28


3/28

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; les s is better.

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

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


8 11/8/2009 7



4/28

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 lostin the switch to 64-bit. Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time isone 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


8 11/8/2009 7



5/28

To test filesystem performance, we ran four tests: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files fromHD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD testscopied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk. For reference, thelarge file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in127 folders, making 603MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the fullwrite 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 on e place to another on a single harddisk. Measured in s econds; less is better.

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


8 11/8/2009 7



6/28

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash driv e 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 harddisk. Measured in s econds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally sufferedcompared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linuxdoesn'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 somethingmore 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 inthree times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do


8 11/8/2009 7



7/28

nothing for 25-30 seconds before suddenly springing into action and deleting the files. However, this wasn't partof our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmarkNotes: This was done using the cross-platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8.10 usesPython 2.5.2, Ubuntu 9.04 uses Python 2.5.4, and we used Python 2.5.4 on the Windows tests. Even thoughthe 64-bit results for Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed withthe Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to20ms on Linux.

Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richard s bench mark. Measured inmilliseconds; less is better.


8 11/8/2009 7



8/28

It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it'snot too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results.

Switching to ext4All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext3, so what happens when we switch to ext4? Well, not alot:

Boot, shu tdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9.04/x86-64 using ext3 (blue) and ext4(red). Measured in seco nds; 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 leavesthe 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 asmarked.

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

You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter

digg it

193diggs

4

reddit


8 11/8/2009 7



9/28

Your comments

ComparisonsCharles Norrie (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 6:29pm

Tt's interesting you have to turn to pro-Linux blast to get decent comparions between Linux and Windows.

Well done for a bit of honest comparison wthot any marketing spin!

All I too am a Linux user, I'm glad to see the results which endorse my belief Linux is easier to use.

Here's a little table:

Issue Windows Linuxkeyclicks to install More LessSpeed of start More LessMoving files More LessBenchmark tests about equalCost $100s Free

Why do you think this is sent from a Linux machine. I don't l ike wasting money!

Ubuntu !=linuxoz123 (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 8:12pm

a few notes:First when you compare windows 7 to ubuntu you don't compare it to to linux.I've used ubuntu for 2 years and now I find debian faster on everything. Plus, I already learned enough to optime mymachine really good. The strenght of UBUNUT is that it has really excellent hardware support, but that comes with acost - it fits everything, so it's really bloated and slow...

Second, when you compare python on windows 7 to python on ubuntu you should check how python on windows 7was compiled and how on ubuntu - for example usually ubuntu packages are optimized for i386 arch. That ofcoursehas a price... I think windows 7 binaries where optimized to i686... but it has to be checked...

And finally, installation time is really not measured by second, rather by what you get after that.In installing any modern linux distro today, icluding ubuntu, you get a really productive computer which includes a fulloffice suite, printer drivers and digital camera drivers and etc. With windows you get solitaire and mineswipper, andnote pad. With every product you have to connect to you computer you need to install drivers, and there is notsoftware coming with it... so in Total linux is much more usable after install.

So benchmark like this are not really convincing.

Richards benchmarkPeter Kraus (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:00pm

Hello,could you throw at me the Richards benchmark you used? I'd like to run it on my own machine (running Arch andWindows 7 from the time I was checking it) to see the difference...

Cheers!

Re: Richards benchm arkRichards (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:06pm

Try this: http://codespeak.net/svn/pypy/dist/pypy/translator/goal/richards.py

RE: DebianAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:24pm


8 11/8/2009 7



10/28

@oz123:

While I agree that Unbuntu != Linux, I think this benchmark does right to ignore optimizations. This only tests thedefault installation. I'm sure that Windows can also be optimized by removing uncessary services, reducing eye candyetc. (but Linux would probably win there as well)

Perhaps the author could add a couple of distributions to the benchmark. And also try an install with KDE as well?

Boot-up timesAsterix (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 10:26pm

The boot up time is not representative. Ubuntu install comes with a full suite of software compared to Windowse with just the OS. Load Windowse up with the a similar application suite and you'll be suprised how long it takes before youcan start working on anything. Windows showing a desktop is lightyears from being able to work with th is thing. Mydual boot Ubuntu takes about 55 secs to boot while my Windowse with similar apps takes about 4 minutes beforeclicking a mouse provides any response. Don't be fooled, it puts a desktop up infront of you very quickly, but it istotally useless.

Wrong figureMartin (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 11:39pm

The last figure, Fig. 11, is a duplicate of Fig. 10.

Another point on boot timesNIck (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 11:52pm

I would also like to point out that it would interesting to test boot times, once someone has installed 50 applicationsonto each OS. Just think of the registry on windows 7, and all those little tray icons chewing up all the memory and thedisk swapping like an man walking on hot coals.

It is also worth pointing out that the install figures don't tell the whole story, once Ubuntu is installed, I have a fullyworking desktop, with many applications, to make the comparison real, you would need to install the same number ofapplications, and record those times as well. I suspect, once you have installed all the anti-virus, spyware, IM client,office suite, IDE, graphics software etc, and spent around 2,000, plus spent at least another 2 hours installing it, the

comparison would be pointless.Nick

Memory & Battery Lifetalishte (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:04am

I know Vista needs 1GB (but slow) at less and I install Ubuntu with full efects in a old pc with an AMD 700Mhz 284RAMand 32MB en Video RAM. In this aspects for movil PC Linux should be better options

boot timeAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:58am68 second boot times ? Mine only takes 15 .... that's factoring in the X-Server sleep :^]

@oz123, I think the titl eKurt (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:22am

@oz123, I think the t itle reads "Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7". Where is the "Ubuntu !=linux" comingfrom? The author clearly states this at the beginning. It was also stated that DEFAULT configurations were used(therefore, no OPTIMIZATIONS).

I myself would have liked to see other major linux distros in the mix (as well as Windows XP). That would be quite an


28 11/8/2009 7



11/28

interesting read...

Ubuntu 9.04 does suppor tAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:22am

Ubuntu 9.04 does support ext4, btw. Although you may need to install from the 'alternate' disk and manually partitionthe disk.

I know it works. I'm using it now :) (Ubuntu 9.04 alpha3)

DRM checks?!?Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:30am

There is no such thing as "DRM checks" in Windows (when copying files). The only DRM-like things is PMP (Protectedmedia paths), but this code is only activated when you use Windows Media Player to watch DRM protected media. Notwhen copying files.

DRM GarbageAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:31am

Quote:"Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figuresshow a drastic performance difference between the two."

Can you explain to me your reasoning that DRM had _any_ impact on these benchmarks? I'm at a bit of a loss as towhy any DRM checks would be going on while you're copying random files from media to media. This might shockyou, but Windows doesn't do a DRM check on txt files, or mp3's, or jpg's, or, to my knowledge, effectively any filewhatsoever. Nor does it factor into the install process.

Seeing as your benchmarks don't include playback of DRM'd media, the DRM subsystem is wholly irrelevant, andfrankly, your mentioning it as a possible reason for any benchmark results seen above only serves to discredit what Ithought was otherwise a pretty reasonable benchmarking article.

Odd, actually . I experi encemjt (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:35am

Odd, actually. I experience faster times with a desktophaving less horsepower. Could be the distro, of course.

I exclusively use openSuSE (11.1) - a far superior distroto Ubuntu, IMO. One an AMD 64 with 4GB RAM and four1GB drives ...

My install time is about the same, but more of the kitchensink gets installed with openSuSE. I never count mouseclicks for the install, because for me, it's more importantwhat gets installed - but I think the "newbie" install mode

for openSuSE is like 4-6 clicks. What I find more importantis "configurability" of install - with openSuSE, I havemore level of detail over install than Ubuntu could hope for.

Disk space used for final install. Yea, I have the kitchensink installed, so more than Ubuntu - not as much as Win,but who cares with the price of storage these days.

Boot up time: about 25 seconds for me. Shutdown about 10.

IO performance? Bah ... we all know any *nix system willbeat a Windows box.

But what about all the other "performance" figures thatare usually missed? How about all the t ime it takes to


28 11/8/2009 7



12/28

turn off and configure out all those nuisance securitydialog box items with Windows (?)

And don't forget the time it takes to download and installthe required antivirus/etc tools for Windows. And all thesubsequent maintenance tools that will be required fora Windows box.

For me, it's not about install, bootup/shutdown, and filecopying times .... it's more about the daily productivityI realize with Linux (I also use a MacBook Pro) overWindows. I get MORE work done with *Nix than I do withWindows because of the REDUCED overhead of theweeklymaintenance chores inherent with Windows.

Thanks for the article!

Regards, mjt ... author, "Inside Linux"

great arguments all round, but w hat about gamers?Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:02am

i definately hear what everyone is saying, and by the looks of things, ubuntu is the better OS. HOWEVER, what aboutpeople who want to run a blisteringly fast system, to play games on as well as run graphic-intensive programs?ubuntu just really doesnt seem to hold its own in this respect......

GamesAsterix (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:38am

For games there is a thing call ed a Game Console. Games does not belong on a desktop unless you want to breakand bloat your install.

Boot timesRuffinius (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:47am

I have both Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows 7 installed and I measure boot time from grub to gauge the OS performanceonly. I've measured 14 seconds and 20 seconds respectively, of course Ubuntu has been tweak and has the Ext4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BmgenrKWc

Are you sure about the boot tim e?darkmax (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:51am

It takes me about 48sec from a cold boot to full active desktop in Windows Vista, and about 37sec on Windows 7. Bothare 64 bit OSes. Where'd you get your figures?

BTW, Vista and Windows 7 tends to be slower just after installation. It get s faster once Super-Prefetch learns thebooting sequence.

don't know anything aboutAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:28am

don't know anything about ubuntu, just wondering about the install times. does ubuntu install all of the drivers thatwin7 does, or does it take time to hunt them down and install them?

PC GamingAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:39am


28 11/8/2009 7



13/28

Asterix, are you serious?

The PC has been the one gaming platform that has truly endured, and frankly, there are games you can play on a PCthat you simply can't play on a console. Not just due to processing power and capabilities, but superior controlmechanisms as well.

Not to mention things such as modding...

Either you've got no idea what you're talking about or you're a troll . I'm undecided which is worse...

InstallationAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:03am

I think it should be mentioned, that a fresh installation of Ubuntu includes a full office suite and other usefull softwarewhile with Windows all you get is more or less a naked OS.

>does ubuntu i nstall all ofAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:13am

>does ubuntu install all of the drivers that win7 does, or>does it take time to hunt them down and install them?

of course yes

BenchmarkxTdub (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:13am

Something is up with your benchmarks. Windows 7 is faster for me in every way than Vista, except for shutdown times.It takes me about 25 seconds from POST to desktop with a PC with lower specs. Also, Windows 7 only took 35 min toinstall for me while Vista took near an hour. Also, Windows 7 automatically installs drivers and other things like thatduring install, so the PC is completely usable at first boot. Also, about the amount of clicks to install, Ubuntuinstallations are 80% keyboard based, maybe more. My 10 cents.

Boot TimesJason Cartwright (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:31am

The boot times you have for Windows 7 are REALLY slow for that high spec system.

I have a 2yo laptop - 1.83Ghz, 2GB RAM, running Windows 7 32-bit. It boots in 37 seconds, compared to around 50seconds with Vista.

So really not sure how a Core i7 with 6GB RAM could have a 59 second boot time.

With this benchmark being so far off what I've experienced, I seriously question all of your statistics.

Boot tomeAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:40amI am up and running with 7 office 2007 installed in 50 seconds and online. I have a p4 dell with three gigs. It's gettinglike mac fanboys with ms and linux. I also find it much easier to install 7 than buntu and have done it with only 7 or 8mouse clicks. I do agree with the fact that you have openoffice on the buntu install. 7 is an improvement and hopefullywill get better. I have never really cared for buntu or any other linux distro. They are just not pretty enough and wholikes to wake up with a cayote ugly install ............ ..

Yes....Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:48am

It may be slower but whats it worth having a faster machine without really good software? I'm a long time Linux user


28 11/8/2009 7



14/28

and its nice for web browsing etc. But what about indesign, photoshop, flash editing, video editing, music editing...?Yes there are a few remakes with maybe gimp as the king. and maybe you cut all your holiday movies with Kino butsome people have to do serious work.

Daily produc tivityAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:59am

"For me, it's not about install, bootup/shutdown, and filecopying times .... it's more about the daily productivityI realize with Linux (I also use a MacBook Pro) overWindows. I get MORE work done with *Nix than I do withWindows because of the REDUCED overhead of theweeklymaintenance chores inherent with Windows.

Thanks for the article!

Regards, mjt ... author, "Inside Linux""

...more work done. Could you please explain what you "work" on Linux that flows so much better? Weeklymaintenance... on my desktop?!

Install tim esAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:01amThe only thing I'm quite surprised of is the install times. Specially for Windows. I thought Windows XP was incrediblyslow and difficult to install compared to Ubuntu. (Slow in time and difficul t because my hd-controller on newermachines never worked out of the box)

But after having to reinstall Windows Vista on my Thinkpad T61 (dual-core 2.2ghz cpu, 160ghz 7200rpm hd and 4gb ofram) i was amazed on how deadly slow Vista (32bit) installed.

I had to wait for hours and hours. It definitely took way more than 4 hours to get to a working desktop and the first setof 'updates' to install afterwards easily took another 2 hours.

I don't think i ever installed Ubuntu from scratch of cd-rom in 15mins (900s) but in my experience every Vista of XPinstall took at least hours on modern hardware not 22mins..

How abou t Mac OS X?Petr J (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:03am

It would be really n ice to also see Mac OS X numbers. I switched from Windows to Mac mainly because ofperformance, and I've been satisfied so far. But Ubuntu may be even faster, and I am thinking about moving from Macto Ubuntu. What do you think, should I?

A few word s on disk space usageAux (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:18am

Don't forget that Windows creates a special file for hibernation which has the size of your RAM. Looking at the graphsyou will find out that the difference between Windows and Ubuntu disk space usage is almost 6 GB - just the size ofyour RAM.

What really pleases me aboutPaolo (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:30am

What really pleases me about this benchmark is the fact that the two operating systems are in the same league.

It's impressive if you think that one comes from a mul ti-year, multi-billion dollar investment from a single commercialentity (a giant one), while the other is the product of the relentless and coordinated effort of thousands of peoplearound the world.


28 11/8/2009 7



15/28

So having a high level commercial-quality product, mantaining control over it (source code), and free of charge, reallymakes me feel good.

The sofware industry is the only one where this is happening, and I find it a very pleasant place to be.

Disk UsageAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:43am

A big difference between Windows and Linux disk usage is that Windows installation have to include a swap file (up toseveral Go) where it is set apart in the Linux installation.

It is not sufficient to explain the difference between disk usage but it has to be noted.

Regards,

Ive ALWAYS wanted to do a test lik e thatAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:59am

Ofcause i cant help to think how one of my favourite distros would reak havoc.

Gentoo: (ofcause this is just a though up one)

Installtime: 30 min -> 30days you'll never know

Mouseclicks to install: 0Boottime with InitNG: 28 seconds (actually did that on a older laptop to gnome so not unreasonable)performance: anything from debianish to GODLIKE depending on your magic touch .Lastly , why not try tux3 or btrfs : BOOM crashy crashy

EULA?Anonymous Windows fan (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 10:36am

You know, that benchmasking Windows 7 Beta violates the EULA?

nit pickMalcolm Parsons (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 11:05am

"Measured in, er, mouse clicks; less is better"

s/less/fewer/

Different resultsRobin Jacobs (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 11:58am

I suspect your test machine has some driver issues

On a much lesser spec machine (Asus eee 901 single core 1.6Gz Intel with 2Gb Ram)

From switch on to workable desktop: 41 seconds for windows 7 32bit, shutdown in 11 seconds.

For comparison: The same machine boots XP in 22 seconds to the desktop but before its usable 40 seconds willpass.

Ubuntu on a eee 901 more than 60 seconds.

Grub delaymarcel (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:45pm


28 11/8/2009 7



16/28

Usually Ubuntu configures the bootloader Grub for a delay of 3 seconds. Did you set it to zero? Otherwise the resultsare not correct.

ubuntu and win7 install timesAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:53pm

well....i have an athlon xp 2600+ (1920 mhz), 768 mb ram(ddr 400 mhz), 2 year old 160 gb seagate hdd (IDE), nforce 2mainboard. ubuntu takes aprox.20 minutes to install, win7 aprox 25 minutes, and vistaSP1 almost 28-30 minutes (allare the 32 bit versions of the OS)about the boot times i don't know....did not take the time to measure it :)). the only thing i can say is that win 7 is muchfaster than vista.

I'd like to learn more about small file copyAnonymous msfter (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:07pm

This is a set of interesting tests.

Could you please explain the details of your small file copy benchmark?

For example how many files, what's the average file size, how did you copy the files etc...

Thank you in advance.

Why Ubuntu???Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:16pm

If i can choose, i prefer Fedora to ululubuntu.

an IT bod of 20 yearsAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:25pm

I like the way he calls Windows 7 'a contender', as if there's actually going to be some sort of competition for thedesktop (as opposed to scrabbling for the


17/28

Windows 7. And once again, I don't care on how long it takes.

I installed Ubuntu 8.10 on one system and at the first GUI boot-up it complained that my screen could not handle theresolution. When I finally got it at a decent resolution, it still was way more than a 17" LCD could handle.

moonAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:44pm

ok

Hmmm....Tyr (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:45pm

As a user of both platforms....I find the review a little bit skewed. I'm not call ing the reviewer a liar, but some of thosenumbers are pretty off. Some things have to be kept in mind as well, Vista and Windows 7 both have protectionrunning 24/7, and there's a resource and performance monitor running 24/7 too. To get a completely 'equal'benchmark, you need to disable System Restore and all the resource, reliability and performance monitoring toolswithin Vista/7. Granted, a straight default compare will show these numbers to the naked eye possibly, but you need tonote the fact that these things are going on in the background vs. Ubuntu which is pretty much raw and has nooverhead....which also means that if God forbid you have issues somewhere along the line, GL recovering. However, Idid some tests on my laptop which is lower powered than the test machine used in this review and I didn't get equallyrepresentative numbers by any means. I only used 32 bit software, since I just wanted to get an idea and the machineis a T330 with 2GB Ram and 160GB hard drive. Vista took ~1410 secs, Windows 7 took ~973 secs and Ubuntu 9.10took ~930 secs. Ubuntu also gave me a helluva time setting up partitions, but I didn't count that.

The reason deletes/etc. take a while...like copying does as well is that the performance monitor benchmarkseverything, and superfetch caches everything. If you check the Reliability and Performance monitor, you can see whatI mean. Everything is there.

Windows works with indexing (to find files fast etc.) and superfetch (to read and write files that are repeatedly opened).That means that the first time a certain file is copied/read/written it may take a while, but if that same file is dealt withagain the action is much faster. It also means that cutting/pasting is faster than copying. Superfetch means thatapplications in general run a lot faster after they're used a few times. And indexing while using some overhead, paysoff when searching for files. This is an advantage. Because of this, your bootup and shutdown times aren't a truereflection of Vista/7's numbers.For instance, I run Vista Ultimate 64, I have been for about 2 years (so imagine the gunk in my system?!) and I boot in

47 seconds, start to finish (I have no less than 35 icons starting in my notif. area, mind you) and my system reflects~17 seconds less than yours. I'm also not running as powerful a system as you are (C2Q 6600@3GHZ, 4GB PC 1000,NV8800 GT, 2+TB HDs, etc.) Shutdown is a solid 15 secs. One reason 7 is faster than Vista is because MS has foundsome way to optimize the process of monitoring everything at all times.

Now let's talk software. A bunch of people are saying that Ubuntu has so and so installed. Vista and 7 have it all aswell, with the exception of an office suite.If you're going to test amount of clicks it takes from start to finish, it'd be nice if you tested some software installs fromsites like betanews etc. to see how quickly something installs in Ubuntu vs. Vista/7.

Now I read the little protection used for the review...."these results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS,like most users do."That's all well and good. But a great car isn't one that runs perfect in the first week of turning it on. It's the one thatlasts and keeps on running. Superfetch and indexing improves Vista/7s numbers over time, and system restoreprotects users from crashes/install issues. I suggest you use the system for a week or 2 and then benchmark thecopies/deletes/boots/shutdowns again.

Re: an IT bod of 20 yearsBlackhouse (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:54pm

"[...] He also treats both distro's as if Ubuntu comes with all codecs and s/w installed - it doesn't (Yes I know Windowsdoesn't have .FLAC and the like, but it still outdoes Linux for ready-installed codecs by a large margin)."

Windows only comes with MP3, WAV and Windows Media support (well these are the codecs that matter most of theavailable ones in windowss).

While Ubuntu cannot legally offer MP3 or Windows Media from install, it's ridiculous to say that out of the box Ubuntu


28 11/8/2009 7



18/28

isn't loaded with a l ot more software than Windows is. It comes with an office suite, chat, VoiP and a lot more out of thebox. The size of the Vista 64bit version (which is the Windows version I use) after install is ridiculous.

"[...] And, at the end of the day, it would have been nice if the open source community had been putting this mucheffort in 15 years ago, when it would have made a difference...."

It still makes a difference, I'm very happy Linux and OSS are around :)

This is aggravatingBlaque (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:04pm

Why must people come complaining about their distro not being used or screaming "my distro is better". Get over iffolk. Go to your community and ask them to do a benchmark like this. First off he seems to want to compare a userfriendly desktop distro so Debian though it may be faster probably would not fit the bill. For that matter Fedora whilepowerful and cutting edge is not as likely to work out of the box as Ubuntu is. This is no knock on Fedora because Ilike the distro and I try out each new version so I KNOW its less likely to work out of the box. I've tried OpenSUSE andfound that as many have said it seems sluggish out of the box. Now if you ask me he could have tried Mint, PCLinux,Mandriva and some others that are user friendly and that would have been fine as well. For whatever reason he wentwith Ubuntu...that doesn't make Ubuntu == Linux.

As for the comparisons of Win 7 I have seen similar results with the beta I downloaded. I didn't get this feel of blazingspeed and it boots slow for me. These benchmarks confirm that I'd be wasting money paying for Win 7. The two are inthe same league.

Also I think that it should be reiterated. When installing Ubuntu (or almost any other Linux distro) you are gettingalmost ALL of the drivers you need installed AND a full set of software for documents, graphics and more. I think it isdownright amazing that all of this is installed in the time it takes to get a basic OS shell in a Win7 install.

@TyrAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:16pm

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

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

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

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

Antiviruuusuu (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:25pm

All Windows must be benched with a Antivirus!

seriously

Minor Note on Boot Timesthe rabid Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:38pm

I notice a lot of folks have been mentioning the extraordinary boot t imes for any of the OSes listed, and how on theirlesser hardware they seem to do better. Heck, booting Ubuntu from a USB stick on older hardware I seem to do better(in general) but I haven't timed it. One note the author does make, however, is that the DELL post takes about 20seconds -- so don't forget to subtract about that much from any of the listed boot times and things come in line withwhat everyone else seems to be experiencing. As for the Vista system that still boots in about 47 seconds after twoyears -- kudos! I worked on a Vista system the other day that was only about two weeks old. Boot was horrible,because the user already had spyware and viruses! Pick a Linux, any Linux, and I'll bet you'd be better off! Any OS


28 11/8/2009 7



19/28

that requires add-on software to keep it usable is deficient.

Wow....TheNetAvenger (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:52pm

If this article was to invoke dialog, you were successful; however, if it was to inform users of any facts or evenperception of facts, it fails.

This article, the opinions and the methods of the test are a slap in the face of Ubuntu and Windows equally.

As many posts already try to explain, you have many massive inaccuracies in both fact and author's opinion of whatthe OSes are doing.

Here are a few points that you might want to consider before you lose all technical credibility...

1) Get your facts dead on.

2) Don't assume what the OS is doing, know what it is doing and explain it instead of taking a guess.

3) Don't cross review technologies and then force them to conform to a standard set of scores. Example: The ext3/ext4is pointless, and yet there is no information on NTFS. (Also this disregards what the FS are doing, l ike NTFS's

journaling and copy on write snapshot features. BTW - DRM has nothing to do with anything at the FS or NTFS levelEVER, that comment is just scary coming from anyone using a computer, let alone a technical review.)

4) Get technical people to review an article like this before you publish it. My tech team alone could have saved you alot of embarrassment.

5) Don't pick abstract 'benchmarks'... Do you really th ink users care how many mouse clicks it takes? Did you explain asimple command line or installation script on Vista or Win7 can reduce this number to 0? You can also reduce theclicks on Ubuntu as well. And just these anomolies make a 'test' l ike this pointless.

6) Don't disregard performance features of an OS as meaningless, and then go on to benchmark it for performance.Example: There is a massive differnce between the first hour of operation on Vista or Win7 to the next hours of usage.(Disregarding prefetching, superfetch, etc would be like turning off the caching features of Ubuntu and tell ing users itwon't matter in the performance differences.)

PS: Do you not realize that Vista/Win7 doesn't even optimize the boot time until it has been rebooted more than five (5)times, a simple check of a MS Whitepaper explains, because it is expected that users are installing drivers andsoftware.

Our labs show quite different results, and some are more favorable to Ubuntu and some are more favorable toWindows.

-----

At the 'best' you are losing the respect of technical users and at the 'worst' you are misleading non-technical users.And sadly hurting both Ubuntu and Windows at the same time.

Wow...

The Net Avenger

"He also treats bothAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:01pm

"He also treats both distro's as if Ubuntu comes with all codecs and s/w installed - it doesn't (Yes I know Windowsdoesn't have .FLAC and the like, but it still outdoes Linux for ready-installed codecs by a large margin)."

Well in my opionion, i can play everything that's thrown at me in Linux (audio or movie wise) with 0 or 1 installcommand. With Windows it's a continuous battle to find the correct codecs for every new type of audio/video file youget and make sure that in the mean time you don't get swallowed by mallware/virusses or a crappy running machinedue to all the mega-codec-packs out there.

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


28 11/8/2009 7



20/28

Ubuntu has a prefetcher or preloader or whatever they call it knowadays.. With preloads data from harddrive intomemory during the moments in the boot process where there is little or no disk I/O activity. This is mostly used tospeed up the boot process.(But i cannot really speak on how this compares to superfetch on Windows from the hyper/techno-words it sounds likesuperfetch does much more... but it's hard to know before getting real data on it's actual behaviour and impact)

On w hat planetAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:01pm

On what planet does windows vista boot faster than ubuntu? Really, I have two laptop machines one running vistax64(with 4 gigs of ram, duo core, fresh install 2007 model from HP) and the other ubuntu 8.10 (2 gigs of ram, 2005 modelfrom FJS, had ubuntu running for 6 months) and not only doesn my ubuntu boots faster, it runs faster as well.

Nope, not buying Vista out-doing Ubuntu on ANY aspect, and it's not that I am a unix die-hard (my main machine iswinXP, ubuntu is my web-runner) but Vista is really bad performance-wise...

Large files seems rather of m edium sizeAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:27pm

The large files in the test seems rather of medium size. Maybe the next test could use a few 700MB .ISOs, some4.4GB dvd backups and maybe a directory with a few hundred ~20MB .RAWs and .FLACS.

test objectivesAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:51pm

Next time I would measure not only the number of mouse clicks during install , but also the total angle rotated withmouse wheel and, with windows of course, number of facepalms :-)

Live in peace or die in war!

User FreedomAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:57pm

there is more to a desktop than just a performance and is freedom of use for what ever purpose i need and ubuntuprovides all that and windows doesn't provide any of them.even if windows performs a lot more better i simply wouldn'tuse it.ubuntu is the desktop linux distribution that is in use by most no.of people in the world,therefore as a representive ofall GNU/Linux distributions in use UBUNTU is used.All linux distributions should should learn from each other and the competition should be healthy and productive notcounter-productive.This is the power of open-source model of development


28 11/8/2009 7



21/28

I like itFlavio (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 4:03pm

Of course we can't take this benchmark seriously but it's quite interesting.

For me, boot time is pointless but some people wants to have the desktop ready asap when turns it on. Someone toldabout STR in Windows. Be careful! Windows needs to many restarts because of it's working model and I saw a lot ofpeople loosing data because never turned the notebook off.

The installation time and clicks needed should not be interesting for customers that buy Windows taxed as a part ofthe computer's price but for people like me that had to make it after and outage. I install any Linux distribution(Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Debian) with ALL needed codecs, office suites and a full hand of useful programs fullyupdated in about an hour in a Pentium IV 512M ram. The last time I installed Windows XP, Office 2003, Adobe Reader,antivirus and all Updates from Microsoft took me 6 hours on a dual core machine and 2GB of ram. Oh yes, and a pileof CDs and DVDs for all of them.

Come on guys... how can someone say that Windows is serious business?

Transcode testAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 4:07pm

Another good benchmark would be to test handbreak on how quick a "home video" can be reduced in size.

Windows 7 on netbooksAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:18pm

The press are saying Windows 7 will be the answer to netbooks (and it isn't even released yet - its only beta).Considering ubuntu has all it's applications in 2.3GB of disc space but Windows 7 is has almost nothing and yet stilltakes 8GB then Windows 7 can't compete on the smaller netbooks because the OS needs too much disc space.Windows based netbooks will still need a different spec to the l ighter, leaner linux based netbooks.Windows 7 isn't going to be the netbook killer after all.

IOPS tes tAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:33pm

An IOPS (Input/Output operations Per Second) test would be nice and not just bandwith :)

Good afternoon forVan der Lancaster (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:36pm

Good afternoon for all..

Well, when I installed Ubuntu 8.10 64 bit, I got some dificulty to find the correct sound and wireless drivers - the videoand the modem worked fine. I spent about 12hs looking for these missing drivers and a little more to learn how torecompile and install.Oh, I needed to adapt the flash player, because adobe doesnt have a 64 bit version of this software for linux.

On vista, I had my entire system working properly in 3 or 4 hours (includding office, anti virus and a final defrag).And more - I found vista 32 incredible faster than ubuntu 64.

Finally, Open Office has corrupted one of my Excel files...

I tried both and I prefer Windows Vista (better even than Xp)

DRM Checks? BogusAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:15pm

Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures


28 11/8/2009 7



22/28

show a drastic performance difference between the two.

>What?!DRM inside Windows does NOT influence copy times. Please dont spread false information.

Don't forget the appsLinxe (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:16pm

Ubuntu (and almost all Linux liveCD) include a lot of programs, you don't need to install MS-office, Adobe Photoshop,and a large etc ...

Ubuntu works well, now just imagine using a better Linux (Fedora/Mandriva/Debian/OpenSUSE) ...

Nice attemptAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:22pm

Like the fact you tried to compare them, but many things could have been done different.Compare apples to apples!!!

NTFS vs ext3? Nice.Boot times? Vistas preloader doesnt work until AFTER its had a chance to figure out yoru pattterns, not on first install

Well...Mario (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:27pm

Linux users could be right, but Windows is easier for 'common' people who don't know command-line management(nor have time to learn it from scratch).

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

@Anon Penguin - Nice AttemptKavey (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:36pm

The prefetcher is all about loading applications you use into memory from boot. If anything, this should slow downboot time, not improve it. The purpose of prefetching is to load frequently used appl ications into memory before youactually launch them improving startup times of applications, not the boot time of the system.

Although boot time to me is time from power on until I can do something useful. How about bootup, login, launchFirefox (since it's available for both platforms) and browse to a simple web page. Sure that adds complexity to thechart, but I don't care how quickly the computer pretends to be ready, I care about how long it takes until I can dothings on my system and expect it to actually respond to my requests.

Install and boot times for Linux vs window sMike Pav (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:46pmI find it interesting to constantly see posts or threads on the net about the time it takes windows to boot up. Theburning question for me has never been how fast does the desktop come up, because by virtue of design, windows isoptimised to bring up the desktop very quickly. After the desktop has appeared and the windows jingle sounded, theCPU and hard disk are always thrashing about sometimes for a couple of minutes on a fresh windows system loadedwith office, PDF reader, antivirus, anti-spyware.

For this test to be truly equal, all systems need to have equivalent software capabilities and security, but as we allknow, windows is not capable of looking after itself in this regard, so third party tools are required. That's a shamebecause the third party tools will only add to the boot times as I would consider them, at the point of system activitysettling. Without further clarification of exactly how long it took for the hard disk and CPU to settle and a software andsecurity equalisation, I would classify the times posted for windows to boot as a moot point to be ignored.


28 11/8/2009 7



23/28

With Linux (and I do not classify Ubuntu as the benchmark for Linux), the time is generally consistently somewherearound 2 minutes for most of the distros I have personally tested, so I, along with others that have already replied, cannot take certain portions of this benchmark seriously, though to be fair, the title does give the names of the systemstested. Where I see the benchmark failing in this regard is the use of the word "Linux" 12 times throughout the authorstext, whereas it should have been Ubuntu for this test.

I think if the test was to be further equalised, the Linux used should have all additional drivers removed so only codefor existing hardware is parsed at startup and services not required by the system for non-existent hardware should notbe loaded. I have seen Linux boot times drop from 54 seconds to 38 seconds when the add-ons were removed. If wetake that a step further and complie a kernel specific to the architecture and installed hardware, there will be not onlyan additional speedup at boot, but often in certain aspects of general operation too. Why note these things? Windowsrequires hardware drivers to be loaded and it loads those during bootup for the system it's running on, so it does lessthan a "broad spectrum" distro installed from a Live-CD.

As for install times, I found my preferred distribution Mepis8, still in the testing phase and now at the rc2 level, installsin close to 1/3rd of the times posted for the fastest Ubuntu install. There are others that have equivalent install timestoo, but I think it is sufficient to say that that all things that are called Linux are not Ubuntu.

Mike P

why don't you compare gentoo or arch to w indowsAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 7:05pm

Comparing this 2 distros to windows (7 8 or 9, what you want) would be fun; I'm sure results would be very different...

I'm joking obviously, great article...

Jaunty has ext4Dave K (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 7:41pm

Really nice article, thanks.

I am running Ubuntu Studio Jaunty Alpha 3 and it has ext4 available on install, which I use.

It does default to ext3, however.

I dont see what the big deal is though, choosing ext4 instead of ext3 is very easy.

Disk space on Windows incl udes swap file?Matt S (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:38pm

Ubuntu etc. will usually create a swap partition. Windows generally throws a pagefile.sys in your C: drive.

If you just check how much space is used by the installation on the "Root" drive, you will get different values meaningdifferent things.

In the data here does the Windows value include the swap file? How was the data collected on each system?

I ask because I couldn't make Windows 7 use up 8GB on my systems with 1GB of RAM; the install was around 3GBwith a ~1GB pagefile.sys lurking around.

In English PleaseAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:50pm

Doesn't anybody use a spell-checker? Despite the various Windows versus Linux/Ubuntu arguments, I'm going to goout on a limb, and guess most of you use Firefox, which by default has a spell check. Please, for the love of theInternet, use it!

WTF was that? Boot times?


28 11/8/2009 7



24/28

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:53pm

WTF was that? Boot times? How on earth does that have anything to do with benchmarking? You might as wellbenchmark cows vs space shuttles and learn that cows win because they eat more hay.

I enjoy Linux, I am a seasoned sysadmin and I couldn't care less about the install time. Give me a solid OS and I willbe happy to spend a week getting the damn thing functional.

Bugger off, waste of everybody's time.

Very ni ce article!Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:55pm

I'm a Linux user and liked to read a neutral article, that doesn't try to "prove a point".

Some conclusion from reading it:

- Windows 7 is generally on par with Linux, in terms of performance.

- However, Linux is much smaller than Windows 7.

Even if Microsoft can trim Windows to (say) 3Gb, that's more than Linux uses -- and Linux already includes all the toolsyou may need. (Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.)

This may be the key for Linux adoption in netbooks and smaller devices.

Time to desktop = meaningless?Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:03pm

I find it interesting that the boot time was stopped when the desktop was reached. I don't know if Vista or 7 are anybetter, but in my experience with XP, it's at least another minute after the desktop appears before the machine isusable, with so many tasks starting up in the background and churning disk. On my Debian install, as soon as thedesktop appears I'm good to go.

Perhaps a better measurement would be to stop once you have a page loaded in a brower?

Also, performance aside, I think for a lot of people the choice is more about which one best supports what they want todo with it. Granted, I'm using old OSes so this is an obsolete comparison, but at l east for me I find Linux has betternetworking (XP has serious trouble with WPA), while Windows has better USB hotplug support.

You forgot patching tim eAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:07pm

Another measurement that should be included, right after install.

Time from reboot, to desktop, to patching/reboot cycle, to final desktop where patching is completed.

Van der Lancaster: AdobeAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:10pmVan der Lancaster: Adobe DOES offer Flash for 64 bits for some time. No need to adapt the 32 bit package anymore.

EULA's jaap (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:10pm

Does the Windows install time include reading (and understanding :-) the EULA?Note that the GPL is not an EULA, it is only involved when distributing the software, not when install ing, using or evenmodifying it.


28 11/8/2009 7



25/28

Window s 7 != NTab123 (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:16pm

First when you compare windows 7 to ubuntu you don't compare it to to NT.I've used NT for 2 years and now I find Windows 2000 faster on everything. Plus, I already learned enough to optimizemy machine really well. The strength of Windows 7 is that it has really excellent hardware support, but that comes witha cost - it f its everything, so it's really bloated and slow...

Second, when you compare python on windows 7 to python on ubuntu you should check how python on windows 7

was compiled and how on ubuntu - for example usually Windows 7 packages are optimized for i686 arch. Thatofcourse has a price... I think Ubuntu binaries where optimized to i386... but it has to be checked...

And finally, installation time is really not measured by second, rather by what you get after that.In installing any modern NT distro today, icluding Windows 7, you get a really productive computer which includes afull office suite, printer drivers and digital camera drivers and etc. With Debian you get grep and vi, and bash. Withevery product you have to connect to you computer you need to install kernel modules, and there is not softwarecoming with it... so in Total NT is much more usable after install.

So benchmark like this are not really convincing.

Blackhouse: check up onwombat (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:17pm

Blackhouse: check up on Windows 7 multimedia support. Things have changed positively.

Author: The bit about DRM is just mind-bogglingly dumb.

Really , the guy that saidAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:18pm

Really, the guy that said benchmarking the 7 beta is against the EULA is right. Plus, I'd love to see XP(x86/x64) vsUbuntu(x86/x64).

WothlessAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:23pm

What a waste of time....as was this post.


28 11/8/2009 7



26/28

Ubuntu != GNU/LinuxEldarBerserker (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:27pm

i agree with all the people that says that ubuntu is not gnu/linux... i've used ubuntu, and deleted after 2 hours ofplaying with it. i prefer Debian instead, or Slackware or even openSuSE.

the numbers of clicks of installing software with default options is not an item to be in consideration, because for meUbuntu is a Unnatended version of Debian... so you'll have to compare Ubuntu with XP UE or Vista UE or a Win7 UE ifit's exists...

i know every linux distro installs office suite, but... ue does it too, drivers... in linux i can't make work my webcam, evenif the box says that was linux compatible.

the counter for linux, is from a designer point of view, gimp is good... photoshop is a thousand ways better... the layereffects of photoshop i use a lot, the emulation of this in gimp is very poor. Flash CS3 or CS4 , i can't make it workunder wine, i've tried a lot... but it st ills have some bugs to be fixed... this part still makes me install windows

but i know that gnu/l inux still have strong points over windows, like the filesystems and the security that de filesystemsallow and the "ready to work after install".

so if you wan't to compare operating systems... compare asking to people that have used both systems, whichsystems feels mo confortable in the daily use of a computer...

It's not the OS thatAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:37pm

It's not the OS that matters. It's the applications. The GIMP still sucks. Photoimpact 5 (from 1999) is still better thanGIMP UI wise. Make an opensource version of PHOTOSHOP, with a Photoshop like GUI, and decentperformance.

FedoraAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:37pm

I'd like to see these tests run again in a few months time when Fedora 11 has shipped, since a large number ofupcoming features have a positive effect on performance (20 second boot being the most obvious).

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/FeatureList

Installing Gentoo... 0 clicksAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:38pm

But it takes 3 days! Ha. Had to put that in. I love Gentoo.Nice article - well done

This is the silliest "benchmark" I've seen in a long tim eAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:39pm

Like, wow.


28 11/8/2009 7



27/28

Is it user friendly com pare to Window s?Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:42pm

I have a laptop which run Ubuntu but the problem is

1. when ever my daughter wants to watch video/games on pbskids.org, firefox on ubuntu dones't load these games.2. Realplayer embedded in firefox doesn't work on ubuntu even though I have installed realplayer Linux version ofapplication.3. I have a VCD on PAL format which movie player on Ubuntu doesn't detect.

All of these above works fine on windows. Do I care if Ubuntu boots faster or load application faster 2-3 mill i secondscompare to windows but non of above uses cases work?

Is this article a joke? Benchmark something im portant.Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:50pm

Okay - since you're writing this article from a user perspective, lets look at these results from a user perspective.

INSTALL TIME - Irrelevant. Your average user isn't installing, and when they do, they're running a recovery disk whichmerely images the disk.

INSTALL CLICKS - Irrelevant, as mentioned.

DISK SPACE USED - Irrelevant to MOST home users. With 250gig and 500g HDDs standard, a difference between 4and 8 gigs means nothing to them.

BOOTUP TIME - Aha! Here's something that is relevant. :) However, in this test, Windows beat Linux in all categoriesexcept 64-bit Windows 7, where it only lost out by 2 seconds. Many people are claiming "but it isn't useable atdesktop". How many of these people are using Windows 7? Mine is useable, at the desktop, after 50 seconds.

SHUTDOWN TIME - A mostly irrelevant test, unless you're restarting, but interesting all the same. It appears the 32-bitVista was doing some cached-writing or patching at the end there. It's hard to tell what it was doing though. I guessthis test is relevant if you're .. no, I can't really think of a scenario.

IO TESTING - Ah well. Fair enough test. Your disabled the write-caching which speeds up Windows copying, whichmakes it simply a test based on file systems. And yes, ext is faster than NTFS. :)

RICHARDS TEST - The only real benchmark here. Windows wins.

I would like to see a real-world comparison, rather than install tests the average user is hardly ever going to run into. Ibelieve that in acutal usage tests, Linux would be faster in every category, but this kind of "benchmarking" is purelysituational and subject to very easy tampering of results. It doesn't appear you did tamper (much) but obscure testinglike this doesn't support either cause.

And Charles Nome - Did you even check the results? Your table is all wrong:Issue Windows Linuxkeyclicks to install More Less (Arguable - they appear in this test to click everytime it said RESTARTING IN 30SECONDS, and clearly at the 29th second in order to drag out the t ime-test).Speed of start More Less (Are you kidding? Windows was faster in 3/4 categories, and the only one it was slower inwas by 2 seconds.)Moving files More Less (see above)Benchmark tests about equal (If they were the other way around, you'd be saying LINUX CLEARLY FASTER. So lets

be honest here - WINDOWS CLEARLY FASTER.)Cost $100s Free (I think you'll find they're both free *cough*)

@DRM Checks? BogusAnonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:50pm

you might want to read these:http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Pathhttp://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/08/hdcp-vista.ars


28 11/8/2009 7



28/28

Copyright 2009 Future Publishing, all rights reserved.Web hosti ng by UKFast

1 2 3 4 5 next last

Post new comment

Your name:

Title:

Comment: *

CAPTCHA

Fill in this captcha, or you shall be mocked mercilessly.

Username: Passwor d: Create Account | About TuxRadar

marked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Ubuntu vs Vist

Documents

Transcript of Ubuntu vs Vist