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.)
What an accomplishment!
2009 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop!
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 request to have the tag "duh" added to this thread.
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.
Hell a C128 is better than Vista! "Vista, how hard do YOU want to suck today?"
When it can run MS Office faster.
My father-in-law with a slide rule, graph paper and a mechanical pencil can outperform vista.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
A dubious distinction, to be sure. Hell, my Heathkit H89 running CP/M outperforms Vista, at least when it comes to boot time. It outperforms Ubuntu in that regard also, come to think of it.
Proverbs 21:19
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
"Ubuntu Outperforms Vista" is like saying "Ford Pinto Outperforms Amish Carriage"
I dunno - I think you get MUCH better results when you rear-end a buggy.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Outside of techies and geeks, people just want to know if it runs whatever program they are used too. They dont care about #'s really. Maybe the benchmarks for video cards matter to some people for video games that wouldnt typically know what a benchmark is, but most people dont even know what linux is really (less ubuntu).
Really, this news is that windows scored a 2838, ubuntu a 3367.
Vista boot time: 56 seconds.
Ubuntu boot time: 50 seconds.
While I give a big high five to the developers, I dont think this is a watershed moment.
it would be valuable to now claim "faster than windows" in marketting along with other features. Just that simple phrase will have more penetration.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
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
I'm a Mac guy but I've got a PC for gaming, running XP. I would _love_ to switch to Ubuntu but, unless I'm mistaken (and please! feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), in order to play my PC games I'd need to run an emulator or boot to XP which would defeat the entire purpose - the machine is used solely for gaming so why use a different system and then boot/emulate back to the system I already have? If Ubuntu ever enabled me to play my PC games natively, I'd ditch XP entirely and become a happy Mac/Ubuntu geek.
My Dell Inspiron came with a Broadcom mini pci-e NIC, didn't work unless I used ndiswrapper. I swapped it for an Intel 4965, and it works much better. Good range, good support (2.6.24 supports it, 2.6.27 supports it even better (packet injection, LED working etc etc). So, ever since 8.04 my wlan has worked like a charm. Strangely, when I run geekbench (32-bit) I get: Overall Geekbench Score: 3197 |||||||||||| Submitting results; this might take a minute or two. Submission failed! Couldn't connect to host. This on a T8300 cpu, 4GB 667 ram.
Not performance,
As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me be blunt: timothy's editorial observation shook me to my very core. An operating system released a few days ago with an advanced compositing window manager with hardware acceleration enabled looks prettier than a 7 year old OS with no compositing window manager, little to no hardware acceleration of the desktop, and no fancy 3D desktop effects. Unbelievable, who would have thought this would be the case?
I've thought long and hard about this, but I think I can deliver an observation almost on par with timothy's: Windows XP looks prettier than Windows 95.
Seriously, can we stop with the idiotic editorial comments appended to Slashdot stories? This story was stupid enough for a variety of reasons without the editor adding his personal touch.
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.
That's the slashdot equivalent to "lalalalalala".
I'm going to get boo'd out of the /. community for this, but here it goes.
For people like me, it doesn't matter whether which OS is the fastest (If this was true, Linux would of won the desktop a long time ago). It matters what applications it can run. I mean, I can't really play Crysis or CoD4 with wine...and I need programs like Itunes and winRAR daily that don't work on Linux even with windows program loaders.
I'm just giving my insight :)
Trolls and Linux fan-boys, you may now post.
"Mama always said life was like a box a chocolates, never know what you're gonna get" - Forest Gump
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.
I don't know about that. Its much more entertaining to a third party observer to see the pinto get rear ended.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it."
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate Edition, and I'll speak for myself, thanks
It works fine. What can I say? I'm stuck with Windows or Mac because I've got a whole lot of pro audio hardware and software, and linux has always blown (and still blows, no matter what the ALSA folks tell you) in that arena. The great tools are just not there.
It's stable, runs well, and after I tweaked the settings a bit the latency on my Tascam FW-1082 is awesomely, consistently low. Can't remember the last time I had to fiddle with anything. I was dual-booting to XP for audio work until the last Vista x64 drivers for my gear came out, and I'll be removing the XP partition soon.
Much of the software I have is also available for the Mac. In the end I decided to go with Windows because of the Home Use Program from Microsoft.
I'll be the first to admit that Vista is an incredibly inefficient resource hog. Thankfully, hardware resources are getting pretty darned cheap. I wouldn't put Vista on older hardware.
I have exactly one complaint. After many patches the time it takes to shut down and restart the system is absurd.
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.
Yeah I've got my family converted over too. My wife's been a linux user now for 3 years.
One of the most entertaining events for me recently was watching my wife have to use her mother's computer (Windows XP) the other day to print out some directions and register for something online. After 2 or 3 minutes she was about ready to put her fist through the monitor and start kicking the living hell out of the chassis. "I can't believe I was actually used to using this trash before you put me on linux!". You know, after she walked upstairs to get on the computer, wiggled the mouse to wake it up, waited 30 seconds for the thing to wake up, waited another 15 or 20 seconds for the desktop icons to redraw, had to cancel the system virus scan that started itself up when she got on, waited for Internet Exploder to come up with all of the MyWebSearch and Yahoo toolbars that her mom installed because she has no clue about bundled crapware, and on and on and on...
After you get used to using a "decent" operating system (*nix, MacOS) - having to use a Windows machine is EXTREMELY aggravating. I feel my blood pressure rise the moment I sit down in front of a Billy Box.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
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.
'... doesn't a slug outperform Vista?'
No, Vista produces a great deal more slime.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
> At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place
Simple. At the point there are apps available for Ubuntu that people want to use.
As long as it works "well enough" and isn't too obnoxious (hello Vista) then, apart from hackers/researchers/coders, nobody really cares about their operating system. People only care about the apps they use. In fact a large proportion only care that "I click on that little icon and get on with my stuff".
e.g. Personally I'll make a full time switch to Ubuntu when there is an integrated music program (audio/MIDI sequencer) that either performs as well as, or hopefuly outperforms, my aging copy of Logic Audio (i.e. must have full VST integration or plugins of the quality of NI Massive, NI Battery etc. etc.) Until then I'll be running XP as my main OS.
For other people it's probably stuff like Photoshop, some CAD program, Outlook etc.
Ubuntu's great. I run several Ubuntu desktops and an Ubuntu server but to gain market share it needs some "must have" app(s) that people want to use.
Once that happens then the side bonus is people will start getting used to Linux as they go about their daily comuting.
After the first 10 minutes of spinning cubes, fading menus, whizzy animations etc. etc. who really cares what their OS is doing ? Get out of the way and let me get on with work/play that's what I say.
It's all about the apps.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
But absolutely no useful software runs on it...
Sure there is. It just doesn't come bundled with the system like it does on Linux. You have to hunt around the Intarwebs to find useful software for XP. Or if you go to brick-and-mortar shops (did you know there were brick-and-mortar shops that carry software?) you'll find that almost all of what they carry is for Windows (emphasizing how limited and useless the base system is). Most of the useful software available for Windows isn't as good as the software that comes with Linux, but it's out there, and a few (very few) of the apps are absolutely top-notch.
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 hell out of microsoft, especially with regard to their business practices. But, c'mon, people.
I use vista inside VirtualBox, and give it 1.5x GB of my 2GB of RAM. Mandriva 2008.0 PowerPack gets some 4.x GB of the remainder. About the only thing lately that's been a problem seems to be some Korean-encoded mp3 files i listen to in Amarok (haven't tried RhythmBox...)... or it could be some recent surfing with a down/misconfigured firewall in which during Amarok playback my whole KDE goes black, no keys respond, and I cannot toggle into a console to kill my X/KDE session. Could also be related to some recent upgrades/downloads from Mandriva related to the FREE, magazine DVD-based PPack, and for which i think there is no free upgrade, just add-ons and maybe security fixes.
But, to what i am driving at: I am using:
-- Delftship (not graphically intentensive
-- Lotus Smart Suite (in vista, obviously)
-- Occasionally OO.o 3.0 (in vista)
-- Occasionally OO.0 2.4 (in Linux, as the rpm install has vexed me... why did they de-simplify the RPM install?!!)
-- Punch! ViaCAD, using a 14 MB file i created
-- Amarok,
-- KDE's slideshow program on (which changes b/g images of 10 desktops)
and while i utterly (almost murderously toward mshaft's execs) despise that vista (notice the lower-casing/deprecating of "windows vista"), most of the time it just "runs". I really so much despise ms that all i want vista to do is run its damned self and STAY OUT OF MY WAY. I wish it could/would without having to go to their site get the patches to vista and hopefully NOT break my install inside VBox. But, i'm contented to "leave well enough alone", ESPECIALLY since i never let the beast/bitch go live on the Internet(s). Yep, so far, neither my wireless (for which i've utterly failed to enable NDIS wrappers for this laptop by Gateway... P-6301) nor the NIC have been seen by the native and not by the VBox-contained vista. Unless someone writes an app that traverses VBOX into Linux and out of my CAT-5 connection (which i only rarely connect to the Net), i hopefully won't have any networking security problems with vista, either to it or because of it.
DS
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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.
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."
And this is why all computers should have one of those alcohol interlocks like are installed on cars belonging to DUI convicts.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
What matters is that I go to Dixons (UK electronics store), approach a shelf with subnotebooks and see a sign "Linux notebooks will not work with mobile Internet".
Go figure.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)