Which OS Performs Best With SSDs?

Lucas123 writes "Linux, Vista and Mac OS perform differently with solid state disks. While all of them work well with SSDs, as they write data more efficiently or run fewer applications in the background than XP, surprisingly Windows 2000 appears to be the winner when it comes to performance. However, no OS has yet been optimized to work with SSDs. This lost opportunity is one Microsoft plans to address with Windows 7; Apple, too, is likely to upgrade its platform soon for better SSD performance."

Comments

Re:Awful article

[iYk6]

Several problems with the article. No mention of metric, as parent said. No mention of what Linux-based OS they used. Choice quotes like the following, "but Linux is 'always faster' than Vista or Mac OS X -- to the tune of 1% to 2% -- because like Windows 2000, 'it never runs anything in the background.'" What do background applications have to do with anything? And both Windows 2000 and all Linux distros run stuff in the background. Even DOS does that.

To top it off, the article is spread out over 3 pages. Here's the print link: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Storage&articleId=9123140&taxonomyId=19

Re:Windows 2000 is fastest of Windows and Mac OSX

[JCSoRocks]

Actually recent benchmarks have shown that defragging doesn't make *that* much of a difference - http://www.maximumpc.com/article/the_disk_defrag_difference?page=0%2C2 I've never heard of a fragmented drive affecting machine stability. That's like saying having a 5400 RPM drive instead of a 10,000 RPM drive in a server will make it crash... It makes no sense. Fragmentation has nothing to do with data integrity which is the only thing that would affect stability.

Also, it's "its" not "it's".