Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista
Anonymous writes "By now a lot has been reported on the new features and improvements in Ubuntu 8.10; it also looks like the OS is outperforming Vista in early benchmarking (Geekbench, boot times, etc.) At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?" (And though there are lot of ways to benchmark computers, Ubuntu 8.10 with Compiz Fusion is certainly prettier on my Eee than the Windows XP that it came with.)
Anything can outperform Vista.
When Ubuntu outperforms XP, then I'll complete my transition to an all-Linux house.
because Vista is a bloated mess, but Windows is still the predominant OS, and it will remain that way until the popular games & applications that real people/businesses use are available for Ubuntu.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I've always assumed that Linux outperformed contemporary Windows equivalents on the desktop which is why I run Linux on old machines that are too slow for Windows but plenty fast enough for Linux. Linux speed and faster boots have never been enough to win the desktop. For that you need to be adequate in the categories users directly experience and you need mindshare which requires good marketing and distribution. Mac has great marketing and Microsoft has great distribution.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Vista has already lost in the marketplace. More and more companies are skipping Vista to go from XP to Windows 7 because of all the performance and compatability issues with Vista. So comparing Ubuntu (or any OS actually) to Vista is fairly useless. If you want to make a case for business, do it against the OS's that business really uses - in this case Windows XP, or in the future, Windows 7.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, I would be far more-impressed if I saw the headline "Ubuntu outperforms XP". Now that would be truly something.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Wake me when it'll work on my laptop.
-Sleep/hibernation
-Wireless
-Softkeys
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I suppose the good thing about the benchmark is its non biased evidence. Who knows if it will serve to convince someone to use Ubuntu/Linux or not but at least, those who needs to, will have something to use. Provided of course the source is credible to all...or until Vista obtains a countering non biased benchmark.
No I didn't read TFA but unless the difference on a modern PC causes delays of more than 10 seconds, most people using it for business productivity or for home use wont care.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
First and most importantly, I genuinely despise "speeds and feeds" metrics. It does nothing but harm the distro world when it's reduced to dumb metrics like this.
Second, money talks and specs walk. Right now, Microsoft is the failsafe meme for most PHB's. There are a million reasons for this. Over time this will change as Microsoft tightens the noose. Microsoft's customer is not the admin, but the buyer. The buyer is indifferent to almost all specs and usually overrules engineering with their "business case".
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
In what workload would you include boot? Unless you keep booting up and down all day, boot time has nothing to do with performance.
It's just a BloJJ
Ubuntu after 6 months of use beats XP used for 6 months.
That's easy. Windows get's clogged up with so much crap that in 6 months it's dead in the water. Hell simply installing webroot or another low grade Virus/spy service on XP and it's dog slow city. Most users also install every single crapware they can get their hands on, weatherbug, etc....
Thankfully there is none of that crap for Ubuntu/Linux..... yet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not performance,
As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
When you shopped for the computer did you take as a parameter the fact that the manufactured was openenough to provide details on how to do suspend to ram to anyone apart from MS?
And when you are trying to install a Debian .deb in Windows, talk about dependency hell!
Seriously, dependency hell is something only people that have used linux last time ten years ago can seriously bring up... Let it go.
Windows 3.1 boot time blows Ubuntu 8.10 out of the water.
So what? Windows XP also outperforms Windows Vista. Windows 7 will ALSO likely outperform Windows Vista. Just about EVERYTHING outperforms Windows Vista.
What really would have made this news is if Ubuntu had performed worse than Windows Vista.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
I am probably going to get flamed hard here, but I've been running Vista Ultimate on one of my boxes for quite a while, and it completely blows my other Ubuntu 8.10 box (ran Gutsy 7.10 through Horny Heron 8.04 and now this) out of the water, both in terms of overall functionality, the number of "boring" productivity apps that make me money and fun gaming apps, and the amount of time that I do not have to spend dicking with typical Ubuntu drivers and config problems. Vista has been more stable, less time consuming, and overall waaay more productive. I guess some people like to work on cars, I like to drive mine. And for discreet screwage around, there is the ultimate "quickie" Backtrack3 that gives you the stuff where Linux shines without the Ubuntu commitment.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I didn't RTFA, are they comparing the desktop rendering performance? Tell me when Linux support DRM...
No I cheated, I actually read it...
Merely 6 seconds and you declare that win?...The result could have changed if a different driver is involved. If an unpolished disk driver is in use which requires sleep for a few seconds during boot, the result would easily be flipped around.
Though I thought Vista takes much longer to boot...may be only when I have installed many startup program.
Noticeably faster when switching application?...how did they test that? On both machine it just takes a snap!
Hey at least give us more number and statistic. Like try some disk and network transfer, or may be automate the Firefox to do something.
I generally don't agree Linux is better in the area of hardware configuration. Like Display resolution - last time I tried doing dual screen was running some vendor (ATI) specified configuration tools to modify the xorg.conf, or WiFi WPA2 a year ago is still a very painful process, or Bluetooth Internet Gateway I still need to manually type a few command lines to get the interface and connection setup.
On the side notes, if the hardware works, it's perfect, no headache driver installation. If it does not work on the first boot, it then usually takes a day on average to make it work. I know that's the vendor to blame...but still the fact that Linux kernel and it's internal driver interface is evolving too fast might also be a problem. If DKMS was mature some more years earlier then I could have countless of hours saved...
Windows still have a more completed scenario and UX design. For example, say Printer configuration, it took me a few hours to share a USB HP Printers out on Ubuntu Hardy, surfing through the CUPS docs and alike, and if IIRC, the steps are totally different from what I learned in like 2 years ago. On Windows, it used to be the same steps for over 10 years. Right click -> Properties -> Share is all it takes, also making SMB shares just takes similar steps. On Linux? Will take another good hours to work with Samba...
Linux is doing great...but is still not a prime time. Lack of standard (like Desktop, Kernel Interface) is a double-edges sword. On one hand it will evolve faster, on the other hand no people can keep up with its speed.
The switch is painless and transparent to the end user and they can do everything and run any piece of software they did before the switch. Same goes for large scale business roll-outs as well as the home desktop.
A nitro-fueled dragster outperforms my Toyota, so perhaps I should trade my Camry in?
Performance is just one variable in the equation, and probably not the most important in these days of 3GHz quad core boxes. Compatibility is probably more important. Windows runs the applications most people want and need, while Linux falls short in this area. It may be improving, but it's not there yet. Until there are native versions of Office, Photoshop, and other popular Windows applications, Linux is going nowhere on the desktop except in cases with extreme price pressure to keep the overall system cost as low as possible.
People often compare a clean windows install to a clean linux install, forgetting that a clean linux install is a fully usable system that's ready to go, while a clean windows install is largely useless until you install a significant number of third party apps.
The hidden costs of windows...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Opening the package manager, ticking what you want installed and hitting apply is quite easy...
Opening a browser, searching google, finding a program that seems like it might do what you want, finding the download link, agreeing to the download policy, downloading it, running the installer, clicking next a few times without reading any of the screens is actually a lot harder.
And just because you are given the option of using the command line, doesn't mean you have to... Linux geeks use it because its much quicker when you know what you want, and it's actually easier to walk someone through it over the phone because a textual interface translates much better to vocal instructions.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?
It will only make a difference when an option for pre-installed Linux system is provided by most major OEMs along side other non-Linux systems with these benchmarks highlighted.
In my opinion, 2007-2008 was/is the year(s) of the Linux desktop as far as the technology is concerned. What is lacking now is consumer exposure/education, specifically at the retail level (think Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo, etc.). In the consumer's mind, the operating system is not separate from the hardware they are purchasing. Thus, unless OEMs and computer makers offer Linux on the same level as Windows or other OSes, all these benchmarks, usability results, user freedom, and other positives will only fall upon the ears of the technically brave or elite.
Of course there will always be the new user learning curve when switching to Linux. But, in my opinion, this learning curve in 2007-2008 became no worse than a Windows->Mac switch is today. I don't see a major *technical* problem preventing the *AVERAGE* user (read: email, web, word/presentation documents) switching to a modern binary package-based Linux distributions (read: point and click package and application installation). What is lacking is the exposure to the end user at the point of sale.
Perhaps what will hasten the year of the consumer Linux desktop is when/if cloud-based applications go mainstream and replace their client-side equivalents, in which case the OS running on the PC becomes nearly irrelevant.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
File format and other predatory lock in techniques are far more powerful than straight out application competition.
The manufacturer makes sure their mainboard works with Windows and does not give details to anyone. If OTOH Mircosoft would want data from the manufacturer they would be happy to supply it. But Microsoft doesn't give a rat's behind. Because customers will not complain to Microsoft if it doesn't work. They will just buy another mainboard. Monopoly is sweet.
Perhaps because Ubuntu 8.10 was just recently released?
And it makes a great attention grabbing headline. Not the type of headline for you or me, but for Joe Desktop. I hope that a lot of frustrated Vista users hear about this.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
How did it do in categories like connecting with Exchange?
Divisive issue - Microsoft does not design things with compatibility in mind.
Processing large spreadsheets with VBA macros?
Visual basic = not so great Microsoft code. Why the hell are people sending around large spreadsheets with shitty code?
Running company-critical active-X components?
WTF? Stop trolling. Active-X applications are the bane of open source, Security-hole-ridden and poorly-designed, as a general rule. Besides this, as above, Microsoft does not like interoperability.
Running Photoshop, indesign or illustrator?
WINE or use oss alternatives.
Being updated by group policies.
What kind of server? If you are about to say that the operating system comes from Microsoft, read the above replies.
Note: all of the above problems can be compensated for with a decent amount of know-how, but the better solution is to switch all necessary operating systems over to Linux. Especially the server (thank god for descriptive diagnostics)
Who really cares how fast a machine boots?
Are you excluding servers, then? I can give some really good reasons there.
It's really about applications-- and for companies about fitting in with a corporate network.
There are tons of applications out there for Linux, and as Linux gains market share, the quantity will only increase. As far as fitting in with a corporate network - ? When was the last time you got hired into a company that asked you to bring your own computer because they are not providing one?
Seriously, do you think that Windows computers have major issues on running on a corporate Linux network? No. Why should Linux have issues running on a Microsoft network? Oh, that's right - please see above.
Speed is rarely an issue for what most people use their computers for.
Do you actually talk to users? They have a floating perception of slow.
"Little is much when little you need."
Which is nigh impossible to do on Windows because the entire software distribution system is centered around installing random unknown software off CD/DVD's or off the Internet.
On most linux distros, all the software you'd need is checksummed, signed and can verified.
On Microsoft Windows, you get a sweet hologram sticker... sometimes!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
"It depends" is a good answer for this kind of situation.
What operating systems do, primarily, is manage hardware resources. So things don't get interesting until you don't have enough resources. In most situations, there should be no perceptible difference between operating systems, it's when you begin to push your luck that you start to see differences. And then it depends on exactly how you are pushing your luck: too big a working set, allocating huge chunks of virtual memory, intensive disk I/O, the kind of disk I/O, etc.
Startup is a remarkably resource intensive process in a modern operating system. Back in the day "bootstrapping" an operating system was loading in a short machine language program via the front panel switches, the result of which was the machine was ready to read a program from some device. And today ... the process of startup is not much faster. It just does inconceivably more.
The operating system, of course, also uses resources for various purposes. Vista's aggressive disk caching scheme is an example. If (a) you have plenty of resources to boot the system and (b) Vista guesses right about what you're going to need off disk, life is good. if either or both of these is wrong, life gets miserable. I do most of my work on virtual machines, and Vista is about the worst possible platform to do that with, at least factory configured.
In general, Vista comes with lots of bells and whistles turned on by default. That means push comes to shove a bit sooner. Throw enough hardware at it, or turn off all the features you don't need, and it doesn't look so bad. Seriously, Aero isn't worth having your system not work smoothly because it keeps deciding it needs a bunch of memory pages that have been swapped out.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps because Ubuntu 8.10 was just recently released?
The real question should be... does Ubuntu 8.10 outperform the preceding release of Ubuntu?
I.E. Is it worthwhile to upgrade?
The very first thing a new release of a Linux distro should be compared against are other versions of the Linux distro, and of course other Linux distros.
As this is more of an apples-apples comparison that indicates whether you should use Ubuntu 8.10, or whether you should use a different version or distro, instead.
We already know Linux outperforms Windows... News would be Ubuntu 8.10 outperforms Ubuntu 8.09 or the latest Redhat/Debian/Gentoo by a factor of 30% :)