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'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.
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?
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?"
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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'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 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.
"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.
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.
As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...
I'm sure that feature will be removed prior to the release date.
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.
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)