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

Awful article

[Nick Ives]

It conflates the results of several independent tests to form the view that XP is somehow best. It also bandies about meaningless numbers like one OS being x% faster than another without giving any hint of the metric.

Avoid.

Article is bullshit

[francium de neobie]

When I read into the middle, it says,

According to Far, Mac OS X runs "a little faster than Vista" with an SSD drive, 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."

Ok, so Linux and Windows 2000 never run anything in the background. My head exploded so I stopped reading.

Why would I care?

[Trillan]

Even if their methodology was clear.
Even if their methodology was valid.
Even if every percentage point was accurate.
Even if all of their arguments were valid.
(And none of these are true.)
Why would I care enough about 5% to let that pick my OS?

Re:No optimized OS = false

[nvrrobx]

With all due respect, I call shenanigans on your logic here. OpenSolaris is just as much of a desktop OS as Linux is. Have you looked at the hardware it supports and what runs on it recently?

The word "desktop" isn't even mentioned in the article anywhere.

After reading TFA, it all feels a bit vague anyhow. I see no real performance results, just a few percentages thrown around.