Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks
twitter writes "Recent and controversial benchmarks for Windows 7 leave an important question unanswered: 'Is it faster than GNU/Linux?' Here, at last, is a benchmark that pits Ubuntu, Vista and Windows 7 against each other on the same modern hardware. From install time to GUI efficiency, Ubuntu beats Windows and is often twice as fast. Where Windows 7 is competitive, the difference is something the average user would not notice. The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user."
Queue douchebag saying its only a beta.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Can I mod this story as troll?
I'm a linux user but this story is anything but serious benchmarking.
Because I can snap both installation DVDs in half, I submit that I am clearly more powerful than either OS. Not even close, really.
My unpatched Windows system can get rooted AT LEAST ten times faster than Ubuntu. Take that, Open Source!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
That heapin' helpin' of "we own you" butt-hurt that Microsoft can smack down on any given Windows/MS Product user.
Without that, most users might go absolutely insane from all the power available to them!
Right? RIGHT?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
From TFA:
Our test machine packed an Intel Core i7 920, which in layman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache.
(Emphasis added.)
Not sure what kind of laymen the authors hang out with, but all the laymen I know couldn't tell you the difference between a CPU and a hard drive, or the difference between GHz and GB ... much less figure out what "L3 cache" is!
I always just figured the speed was gained from not having to run virus software all the time.
With virus software installed on Windows 7 ubuntu would kill it even more.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
or how about will it float?
As far as speed goes, let history be your guide or do you think this is the first time in Microsofts history they came out with an OS faster than the previous releases?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Who cares?
"Measured in seconds. Less is better." That would be fewer.
Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD? One could argue that just means Windows 7 installation is bloated, but that still invalidates the benchmarking from a real "serious" perspective, other than the fact that Windows installs more. Great, now we'll say that Half-Life 2 is bloated because it takes longer to install than Half-Life?
And, were Ubuntu faster - which I don't actually doubt all that much - it still doesn't get over the usual gripes people have about switching to Linux. This or that application doesn't work on Linux or there isn't a comparable one (my favorite to mention is Sibelius's music notation software, aptly named Sibelius [or Coda Music's Finale, but I hate Finale]), it's not as easy to use, hardware, etc. Some are not quite valid anymore, some are still valid concerns. Either way, simple benchmarking isn't going to convince most "average users." What do they care, as long as it works and is easy to use?
I'd rather see some "average user usage" benchmarks. That is, see how easy someone finds Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu to use for actual normal tasks in an office. See if OpenOffice (all software, not just word processing) actual can compete with Microsoft Office (and see if it's slower, due to Java?). Web browsing, including using Silverlight and installing plugins and everything. That'd be a test that would help the "Linux really IS a good alternative," more than "My Linux machine boots 5 seconds faster - see, you should switch from Windows!" does.
Clearly Microsoft has been listening to us. Vista takes up a whole 8.2GB, while Windows 7 takes up a mere 7.9GB. I can't wait to get a crack at this smaller, slimmer version of Windows!
Why would anyone care about install time? The only interesting part of the install is how much of your hardware works out of the box, and how much of it can be made to work easily.
Of course installation is the easiest feature to review, but this is 2009 - there is nothing interesting about OS installation anymore.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Ubuntu/Linux is hands down simply more usable after installation.
w/Windows, you are still looking to install Office, as an example.
Value is an entirely subjective concept and it will vary wildly from person to person. For many people, a computer with a free OS that can't run their favorite program has much less value than a computer with a paid OS that can. The same could be said for people who don't want to learn a new interface or people who don't actually want to take the time to instal their own OS.
I've been running an older version of Mandriva. Its startup tume is decidedly slower than XP's, although the XP box at work slows to a crawl when Netware and antivirus kick in. Some things XP seems faster at, some things Mandriva seems faster at (installation of Mandriva and all its apps takes 1/4 the time of a bare bones XP install)
I guess it's time to switch from Mandriva to Ubantu, I'm about ready to build a new computer anyway.
Free Martian Whores!
Is the gaming benchmarks.
I've been slowly switching from XP to Ubuntu on my work laptop, but I am still stuck with XP at home. I just play too many PC games to give up XP. I really don't care if it boots slower than Ubuntu, or takes longer to shut down. What matters to me is actually using the PC.
That only say that one performed better than the other in a very limited set of tests. Not say exactly that one is better than the other (if so, maybe KolibriOS could wipe badly both of them in most of those benchmarks).
"Better" is another thing, and depend on more criteria, like included or available software, security, user friendliness or things like that, and there ubuntu could have the lead or not (and all of those could be very subjective).
But if you can run something in any of them, and need extreme performance, that testing really worth something.
Installation time? *Mouse clicks* to install? Seriously? Those have got to be some of the most useless benchmarks I've ever seen.
Startup and shutdown time are marginally more useful benchmarks, but still not really very important unless you're talking about embedded devices, which the desktop version of Windows 7 (obviously) isn't even designed for.
The file copy benchmarks really didn't find a clear winner either, and that was the only arguably significant benchmark. Or are there really desktop users that spend all day copying files between hard drives and USB drives?
I really didn't care all that much about the outcome. I don't have an emotional investment in Windows or Ubuntu, but this was nothing but a pissing contest from someone who wanted to make some poorly constructed graphs showing that their favorite OS beat another OS (and it didn't even do that! Windows won on a few of the tests!)
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
My P3 windows ME laptop can boot faster than both of them. It can render explorer objects waaaaay faster not to mention open aps faster and do basically everything faster. The GUI is so much simpler and faster especially. Does that means windows ME is awesome? NO! Speed isn't everything. It has to be stable, efficient, and able to run a large variety of software. Linux is stable and efficient but can't run 90% of software out there and Windows XP/Vista/7 is relatively unstable and bulky and inefficient but it can run almost anything. I don't care if I can install and open Microsoft Office on a windows 7 system if it takes me 5 minutes to boot and log in and I don't care if linux boots and opens gui objects crazy fast if I can't install Starcraft 2 on it. The moral of the story is people need to stop saying "This OS is faster so it's better, end of story." You have to look at all aspects of them like stability, price, speed, security, useability, compatability, etc.
But I do have to add that OF COURSE WINDOWS 7 IS SLOWER, IT HAS TO FIRE UP FREAKING DX10 JUST TO RENDER MY FREAKING DESKTOP AND EVERY WINDOW'S EDGES! WTF WERE THEY THINKING?! I DON'T CARE HOW PRETTY IT IS, I HAVE WORK TO DO!!!!! But other than that, it's kinda a toss up when you consider everything.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as soon as the desktop was reached.
Anyone who has ever used WinXP knows that you can't really do anything until all the services and task bar things have loaded. You still have several seconds (20-30 on my machine) once the desktop appears before you can actually do anything.
They mentioned a delay in deleting - could this be shadow copies being made? Actually in general indexing and VSS slow things down a fair bit, are the equivalent services (or daemons I suppose) turned on for their tests?
It's occasionally a handy feature, life saving in Server 2003, but with Vista anyways, for some reason they've decided to not allow the user to determine when to take copies. Like I'd like to be able to do nightly copies; I don't need one every time the system installs a program or whatever.
From install time to GUI efficiency, Ubuntu beats Windows and is often twice as fast.
Does this mean that opening a taskbar menu in GNOME for the first time post-boot no longer locks the UI for several seconds while it populates the menu, as it does in Ubuntu 8.10 (GNOME 2.22 IIRC)? The fact that the UI element most people will use first every time they boot their computer takes an age to load (in UI response terms) in Ubuntu seems like the very antithesis of an efficient UI to me.
I confess I didn't RTFA so if this is mentioned and the summary simply skipped that inconvenient truth I apologise now.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
I have no idea why it took so long. It would freeze on each step, even just after selecting trivial things like keyboard and languages. A google search revealed this was a common problem. After about 30-40 minutes of waiting I finally got to the partition section where bizarrely there was no option to create an Extended Partition, so I had to cancel the install and use the Partition program manually. Why???
Then it would be a repeat of all the old steps as I restarted the install sequences, taking about 30-40 minutes each time. Several times there was a new bizarre problem at the partition stage, which caused me to restart several times. After installing I had no large resolutions even though I have a major brand graphics card. A Google search and a download later, that problem was solved but no dual monitor support yet. A google search revealed it was a pain in the ass and I don't have the heart for it yet.
I've installed various distros bunches of times but never had anything as slow as Ubuntu. Obviously the install program is buggy or I have some hardware conflict, but I've installed windows (A LOT) and never had that problem
Now that I've got Ubuntu up and running I should say that I'm very impressed and its running nicely, though it is still slower than windows at graphics intensive operations.
The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user.
Okay, but this is almost meaningless. Tell me instead, how much value would the average Windows user get from GNU/Linux?
It really can do the basics, is FREE and isn't prone to viral infestation.
It's suitable for a lot of people, they just need to
get over their Microsoft vendorlock fixation.
Incidentally, Macs have the same exact benefits minus the FREE part.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.
Gentoo boots in about 25 seconds, while all kinds of weird text floats through the screen.
Meanwhile, on the same machine, Vista takes more than 40 seconds to actually show the boot screen. Before that, it's blank. First time I turned it on, I thought I have to bring it back to the store. (The laptop came with Vista preinstalled.)
On my old PC laptop, Ubuntu gets very unresponsive, even with every combination of ATI drivers I use. Both Windows XP and Windows Vista boot as fast, if not faster, on it than Ubuntu did. In fact, Windows Vista was generally more responsive during normal use. There were plenty of times where Vista could easily handle stuff like Firefox with Flash and some other stuff open, but Ubuntu would slow down to a crawl.
Mod me down if you want, but I've found Windows to be faster and more responsive out of the box, especially against modern Linux distributions.
People use applications, not operating systems.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it doesn't run the software that people want. That's the biggest thing that holds up Linux on the desktop.
If Linux for the desktop is ever going to really be a viable option, someone needs to come out with a distro with the goal of, "absolutely, positively, 100% Windows Compatible" via Wine or similar technologies.
That distro would conquer the world.
(Cue people giving the argument, "but Microsoft will just change Windows". Yes, they might, but that doesn't affect the installed base of applications, nor does it affect the myriad third party applications, and if there was a viable target, third party companies would ensure compatability.)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
that Ubuntu runs benchmarks faster? A copy file is faster? Certainly things that the average user will never care about. Even my parents leave their machines on 24x7 so boot times matter?
Really, I don't care which is more efficient at booting or copying, if Ubuntu cannot run the software I want all of its performance benefits are lost
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I really like Ubuntu, it is fast, it's useful, and it's hugely effective on older hardware. But if you're a power user on Windows you're suddenly a newblet on Ubuntu. Even if you're not afraid of mucking around in text config files that doesn't mean that you can use your tablet as a notepad like you can with Window Journal, it doesn't mean you can connect your computer to the internet through your 3G phone when you aren't near wifi, it doesn't mean you can use the nifty fingerprint reader to login to your system, it doesn't mean you can login to the hidden SSID secure login encrypted access wifi network at your school or office, and it doesn't mean you can play Blu-ray discs on your brand new high tech system with Ubuntu. Don't get me wrong, if Evolution worked 80% as well as Outlook, I'd have switched my work computer to Ubuntu months ago, just to spite Norton Internet Security 2007 and our IT guys who insist on not caring when NIS shuts down outlook, forcing it to restart. In the end, I just need a few things to get better in Ubuntu and I could see Microsoft cease to exist almost entirely, but it's just not there yet. Sure I'd love to help, but I'm a interaction guy, not a driver programmer. And if I was writing drivers, someone would surely kick my ass for doing it poorly.
Hey I have carpel tunnel and mouse clicking is a very important benchmark you insensitive clout.
This will probably get me a troll mod, but I have to say that it doesn't matter how much faster Linux is than Windows in raw speed. All that matters is what the user perceives. And I have to say it doesn't look that great for Ubuntu or Fedora or any modern linux distro right now (but that's improving!). Right now I have Fedora 10 on a brand new dual core AMD 4550e (low-wattage, but still) with 4 GB of ram.
Let's start with the GUI since that is most visible. Without compiz, Fedora's Gnome GUI is quite fast, but to the user feels slow. You can see widgets redraw and reorder themselves. When you size a window you can see the contents adjusting. You can see tearing of the edges of window decorations. When moving the windows around you often get tearing. These artifacts actually make the desktop feel slower even though it really isn't at all.
With compiz-fusion on, things get a little bit better. But still resizing a window is very painful, especially one with a lot of widgets in it. Moving a window around is usually fast enough, though. I believe compiz's rendering engine is synced to screen refresh which helps a lot here (OS X did this for years). Still thought the system often just feels slow. Windows take some time to pop up some times. Sometimes I get a window of garbage (instead of a popup menu) and then the menu appears in it. Sometimes the effects (fade in, fade out), are delayed. Fancier effects like beam-in, beam-out (kind of cool and makes windows users take notice!) work well sometimes and then sometimes stutter or are delayed.
Maybe this is related to the recently-talked about I/O kernel bug, but my Fedora 10 box stutters all the time. My cron script that renders my background Earth picture with the proper clouds and day/night lighting will cause video and audio to halt for a complete second *every* time it is run. This never happened on my older, single processor Athlon with Fedora 8. PulseAudio also seems to cause audio to stutter at the slightest hint of any i/o. In this machine, anyway, with Fedora 10 and compiz-fusion, my Gnome desktop is very disappointing from the perception of performance pov. In raw speed I'm sure it beats Windows Vista or 7. But when you're frustrated with the inability to play back video and audio without skips, and the stuttering and delays in rendering GUI elements, none of that matters.
Now use a Vista computer with decent hardware with the effects turned on. Everything is silky smooth. Window resizes, moving windows (even with translucent blurring). Popups are timely and smooth. The system just feels more responsive than my Fedora Gnome desktop. Things like audio and video have a high priority and never stutter.
How can we improve this? Several ways. First GTK with client windows goes a long ways to solving the resize problem. Rather than having asynchronous messages being passed to each and every widget's window by X11, we only deal with events to the main window. Sub windows are all managed by GTK internally, eliminating the sync problem. This should hit mainstream soon when some corner cases are taken care of. From what I've read, KDE users might already enjoy this as Qt is supposed to already do client windows on X11. Then we need to get pulseaudio fixed somehow. And the kernel bug. Development on compiz after the merger with Beryl seems to be stalled as well. Seems like 80% of the work is done, but the last 20% always struggles to get done, especially in open source software. Finally I hope that issues regarding RGBA and ARGB in GTK in particular get addressed (if they still exist). Then hopefully more apps (KDE already can do this) will use ARGB visuals appropriately.
From a users view, it's not about the OS as much as it is the applications.
And since they run different apps, its hard to honestly review 'speed'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ubuntu 9.04 is also a beta.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Should have been fair and included FreeBSD in the comparison.
( in my personal experience, its noticeably faster then any Linux distro on the same hardware, )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Windows 7;
22 seconds to login.
7 seconds from login to desktop.
15 seconds to shutdown.
Ubuntu 8.04 (8.10 is full of bugs and unusable);
24 seconds to login.
9 seconds from login to desktop.
Using 1-one thousand count.
\
The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user.
Depends on what you value. I value not having to hunt down and configure obscure software to sync my phone. I value the ability to use third party software when it's released, not when they get around to making a Linux port. I value having drivers that are updated regularly, and a wide variety of quality software options, with actual support, and a user community that doesn't tell me I'm stupid because I couldn't get figure out how to connect to my WiFi network (the solution for which depends on what minor version of the windows manager I'm using, which affects which connection manager is installed by default, etc., etc.)
I also appreciate a uniform interface and application model, which Windows provides. It neither looks nor performs like a hodgepodge mix of new and ancient components, regardless of what may be present under the hood. I appreciate a clipboard which performs as expected. I've also had, by far, more success installing Windows on a wider array of hardware than Linux, including Ubuntu. Oh, the LiveCD won't work for that hardward. Oh, there's no wireless driver for that NIC, but you can wrap this other driver and then do this, and it will work most of the time, except when it doesn't.
A value to me is not saving 7 minutes on the install, or clicking 12 fewer times, (in what should be a one-shot deal anyway), or an OS footprint that saves me 0.01% of my available storage space. Value to me is reliability, choice and quality of software, and minimal fuss with configuring devices and hardware. With XP, Windows reached a level of maturity/stability that I now expect of any OS residing on my desktop (or laptop). That I have to actually pay for the OS and keep Avast resident is an acceptable tradeoff for those things.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
> Lets benchmark a BETA against a Linux distro
They tested Ubuntu 9.04 also, which is ALPHA.
Boot up and Shutdown times are equally irrelevant. I shut the PCs down on weekends. Am I going to notice or care that it takes a few more seconds for a machine to boot up or shut down. Also, these times are highly variable. Even on the same machine I suspect the variation is way outside the differences between the OS. 30 years ago we cared a little bit about boot up times. But then, we were reading from disk or tape, so these times were significant, and we might shut down a machine several times a day. When Apple made the Mac a super fast boot up machine, it was to solve a problem. Now it is just to win a juvenile contest. if there is not an order of magnitude difference, it does not really matter.
File copy time can be an issue, but not for everyone. I am going to make what may be a controversial statement. When I copy a multi Gigabyte set of files, and it takes a half an hour, that does not bother me. Neither do I care that for a large movie one OS might take a 30 seconds, while the next might take two minutes. What annoys me are those little daily copies of a small file that take a minute or so. Clearly there is some overhead. Sure, know how long to copy 1000 files is cool, but when does that happen.
What we don't have is how long it takes to set up a printer, something that I find I do way too often. Or how long it take to print to a printer, which has some OS dependence. Or how long it takes a save a file in MS Office versus OO.org. Or how long it takes to setup email. Or how long it takes to load a web browser. You know, the things that people do every day and tends to eat away at a persons limited time.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm about 3 weeks in and here's the results:
That's about it. Other than those three or four frustrations, it hasn't been a very big deal. Especially when we're talking about a $200 license...
Looking at the ridiculous benchmarks like "install time", "mouse clicks", I feel sympathetic with the author, who just wasted huge efforts on such pointless stuff to begin with.
Wake me up when you come up with some Really Useful Information(TM).
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Besides them flipping their numbers :
"For reference, the large file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in 127 folders, making 603MB in total."
The small file test took 89.8 seconds for Windows 7/x86.
The large file took 5.9 seconds for Windows 7/x86.
Unless small means large and large means small, then for that version, they're claiming transferring a larger, more complex file is 15x quicker than transferring a smaller, less complex file.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Dear Slashdot editors,
We understand perfectly your needs about traffic generation and advertisements.
But please, why publish another stupidity like this... when too recently you had a highly criticized "story" about some random guy that found Ubuntu downloads faster than Vista in his home PC's. Please avoid that kind of sh... (how to name it???), that only ends turning people away for your site in the long term.
Eventually, if you can't stop from posting about so called "comparative benchmarks", please do it in the "idle" section.
regards,
And about a month ago, I setup a dual-boot Ubuntu/Windows machine. Ubuntu was done in about 30-40 minutes. Windows on the other hand, I spent most of a day to install the OS, track down the necessary drivers, install office suites, anti-virus, etc..
This is why anecdotes are useless, for every anecdote that shows one thing you can find one that shows the opposite.
My example above was not fictional. The Windows install was seriously complicated by the fact that my CD (XP with SP3 slipstreamed in) did not recognize the SATA hardware and the system did not have a floppy drive installed (or even space for a floppy drive). This was not bleeding-edge hardware.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
THIS must be The Year of the Linux Desktop!
> 2- Video editing. Super simple video editing.
Not sure what you count as super simple, but have you tried http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/ ?
Siemens NX CAD. Its been running on linux for a few years now, I wrote some of the original installation "hints and tips" back when it was still UGS NX. Granted, it costs more than TurboCAD, but its an excellent program. You might be able to get a good deal if you only want certain licensed features rather than a bundle.
Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures.
No they're not, if you do your benchmarks scientifically. Ignoring the anomoly of a "small file" taking several times longer to copy than the "large file" in Windows 7 ain't so scientific.
Whale
Interesting. I actually do have my family (parents/siblings) using OO.org 3 instead of MS Office, as the $200+ per user is pretty annoying.
That said ... has anyone in your office done anything with Impress or the database (I forget what it's called...) program? I've tried, and they ... eh. I prefer Powerpoint, definitely, unfortunately. MS Word I can live without, although I actually did like the 2007 version... from the UI to the default fonts/headings, which looked pretty nice.
...Ubunghole is only beta-quality...
Not too shabby for an alpha.
What a stupid article and even stupider summary.
#1 Install time and mouse clicks do not a benchmark make.
#2 If you really want a real word comparison that effects many people, then here is a real world benchmark. First get two timers and two identical machines. Second, go out and buy two copies of World of Warcraft and both expansion packs. Now have two people moderately knowledgeable people sit down next to each other. The test is to see who can install and play WOW first, and then who has better performance. One on Windows7 the other on Ubuntu.
I don't want to spoil it, but I would guess it takes the guy running windows7 under an hour from start to playing WOW. The other guy 3 days to 4 weeks, and possibly never when he gets sick and tired of trying to get it to work with Wine and just finds it infinitely easier and a lot more fun just to hang himself with his shoelaces instead.
Now if only commercial software houses would write cross-platform code that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. So many companies got suckered into writing to captured-audience (Windows only or at best Windows plus MacOS) libraries during the last 20 years. It'll be hard and costly to port all that code. I suspect few companies have the resources or even perceive the need to do it.
leaving virtualization on the side for a moment, my XP partition is stripped down and is used for FIFA football, PES football, NHL2009, Chessmaster, Spore, David Douillet judo and some Winnie the Pooh games.
The rest of the time when I work, or someone is surfing, emailing, IM and Skyping, its on the Linux partition.
Im not gonna get rid of my XP because of games but Im not gonna use XP when Im not playing either.
The kids know that if they want to use the desktop w/ 24inch screen, they have to exit the desktop to enter XP and play games. When they are finished, they are asked to reboot so that it can load back into the default Mandriva.
The younger ones like the KDE games more but at 4 yrs old they knew which was Windows and which was Leenix and that the only thing you do on Windows is play games.
Hasnt been a problem since we've been doing this.
And I dont even bother with Photoshop on XP (love GIMP but need my CMYK) anymore since it works fine with Wine and now that I got Spore working there too, that's one thing less to boot out for.
Is it ideal? No but when the kids play, whether it is Linux or XP, I'm using either my laptop or netbook anyways and when I get back my desktop, the kids have learned to put the desktop back as it was.
You can keep the XP for games and just that.
Real men use musical timing to benchmark loading times! 120bpm 4/4 ALL THE WAY!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
and how long does it take / how easy is it to set up gentoo?
Can't speak for Windows 7, but I'm writing this from Firefox, running under Ubunut (sitting here building a new Ubuntu system for my kids). I have about 4 dual boot systems, and I'm to the point I'm not booting XP much anymore.
I'm obviously a fan, but here is my honest to goodness feeling on XP vs. Ubuntu: Straight out of the box, XP is just as fast as Ubuntu.
However, after you install a virus scanner, have 10 different little malware scanners you have to run to catch everything, and then every mother f'n program you installs on Windows thinks it needs to run as a service...hell yeah, Ubuntu is faster.
Man, Windows users just don't know how wonderful it is to have a hard drive that doesn't have CHURN 90% of the time. It's freaking awesome!
And games? As stated, all my systems are dual boot. I find my kids playing games in Linux about 3 out of 4 times I see them on a computer.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Man, it's been a while since we've broken out the classic story of the benchmarks!
Tomorrow: Windows-centric website refutes claims of this benchmark, posts its own.
Saturday: Linux geeks refute claims of yesterday's benchmarks due to funding by Microsoft and/or lack of actual data, and post their own.
Sunday: Microsoft fans declare themselves independent, refute Saturday's benchmarks, and post their own.
Monday: Mainstream media refutes Sunday's benchmarks and posts their own claiming Ubuntu is far faster.
Tuesday: Hardcore gaming website refutes Monday's benchmarks, claims Windows 7 is so much faster, claims XP is faster still, wonders why Ubuntu was invented if it can't play Counterstrike. Benchmarks are provided to show how much faster Windows 7 is and how much Ubuntu doesn't run Counterstrike out of the box.
Wednesday: Business news site refutes Tuesday's benchmarks and claims, announces it is switching to Ubuntu. Benchmarks are provided to show how much faster Ubuntu is when dealing with MySQL and Apache.
Thursday: Another business news site refutes Wednesday's benchmarks and claims, announces it is giving up on Ubuntu, claiming MySQL is stupid and the previous news site is stupid for using it. Benchmarks are provided to show how much faster Windows 7 is when running MSSQL and IIS.
Friday: A lone Amiga geek refutes everyone's claims, brags about how much faster and better life is with Amiga, promises a new version any year now.
Saturday: (no claims or benchmarks; Linux and Windows camps simply issue condescending stares at Friday's Amiga geek)
Sunday: Linux website refutes Thursday's claims...
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
30 years ago we cared a little bit about boot up times.
30 years ago computers booted up a lot faster than the new ones do, even though CPU speeds are a thousand times faster. However, back then an OS fit on one floppy and you only had dozens of kilobytes of data to load, too.
I care a lot more about boot times now than I did then. I shut off my computer every night unless I have a bunch of huge downloads going, and turn it back on when I get home from work. Haven't you ever heard of Global Warming? (If you live on the US east coast DON'T click that link!)
Free Martian Whores!
Every time those words appear on the Front-Page of Slashdot, Bill Gates kills another kitten.
But seriously, are we expecting an objective and balanced news article from twitter on Microsoft? There's "provocative" reporting, then there's the "Fox News" of reporting. This article sinks below both.
throw new NoSignatureException();
I don't care which is more efficient at booting or copying, if Ubuntu cannot run the software I wan
For a lot of users, running the operation they want the most is simply copying all the pictures they've taken from their photo camera to their harddisk over USB.
(And then subsequently upload them on FaceBook, but that wasn't benchmarked in TFA)
If some Windows flavor sucks epically when copying files over USB, that is going to alienate lots of average users in their daily activity.
(although, most average users are just used to put up with whatever suckiness Microsoft imposes on them...)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Speaking of useless anecdotes... I tried to install Ubuntu on an old PC a year or two ago and failed because the install CD wasn't able to boot off of a SATA optical drive. XP installed just fine.
Boot up and Shutdown times are equally irrelevant. I shut the PCs down on weekends. Am I going to notice or care that it takes a few more seconds for a machine to boot up or shut down.
At times I am astounded how hard it seems to be to add a disclaimer such as "In my opinion" or "I think" to statements like these.
In my opinion, using Linux-based OS:es mainly on an EeePC, which drains the batteries pretty quickly in sleep and is used daily in school, where I might need to haul it out of the bag and use it quickly, OS boot time is very important. (I also happen to have a stationary computer with a glitchy powersupply that turns power right on again after a soft stop, such as after a hibernate. Quick bootups are nice there too).
Oh and thanks for helping out the environment by keeping your PC turned on all week.
They didn't say whether or not they turned off these two services for Vista and 7. They sacrifice some hard drive performance for safety and convenience. I'm familiar with using Ubuntu, but I don't know if it has the linux equivalent of these running by default (I'm fairly sure system restore isn't in Ubuntu)
The fact that boot up times were so close to each other would attest to Windows being at least on par with Ubuntu in hdd read performance. The sudden drop in hdd performance after boot up may be attributed to the above two features.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Ah... someone else who couldn't understand Linux. Please, sir, there's no need to bitter about it. *nix-based operating systems ARE user friendly, they're just picky about who their friends are.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Because I haven't upgraded since 2004, it's time. I installed Suse a few years ago, and I liked it better, but my TV didn't, damned svideo out on my video card wouldn't work for some reason so I switched back.
For a while there I was trying a new distro every month. If I try Ubantu and don't like it, switching back to Mandriva should be easy.
Free Martian Whores!
Anyone who has ever used WinXP knows that you can't really do anything until all the services and task bar things have loaded. You still have several seconds (20-30 on my machine) once the desktop appears before you can actually do anything.
Most of this additionnal delay is due to :
- pre-caching which tries to pre-load the most commonly used files into memory.
- tons of crapware starting in background.
- antivirus check before each of the above mentionned stuff is opened.
TFA uses a fresh install, as such :
- the pre-caching list is empty Windows shouldn't pre-load anything (this is even said in TFA, giving the benefit of doubt that perhaps with some pre-caching, the system could be a bit faster...)
- they use fresh installs. there aren't much crap installed on the machine (well unless you consider "crap" an OS which installs 12GB of unidentified stuff when installing a bare system). As such the quantity of stuff starting the background should be lower.
And therefore, their benchmark isn't as much affected by the post-"desktop appeared" delays as with an average Windows install.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's true that install time is not really a great benchmark, espicially since the only thing you care about is if the system works good post-install, and that's hard to quantify. I do, however, boot up and shutdown my computer everyday. I also logout when I'm not using my computer at school, it takes at least 30 seconds for a windows XP machine to be useable post-login, and 5 seconds for an identical model computer using PClinux OS to be use-able. And if you back up your data to a usb drive regularly, you care about read/write times of large collections of files.
Excuse my bias towards gaming, but outside of business and server space theres only one reason for 'performance benchmarks'. Do it all again with Crysis, or Oblivion, or any 'mainstream' gaming title, or non-FOSS anything for that matter.
Oh, wait... you said Linux right?
Not to pick and choose, but in my book compatibility with developed salable software comes first, absolute performance comes second. Sure Ubuntu could run Doom faster, does it look like anyone would excrete a certain building material over it? Can someone explain to me how doing less is overridden by doing it faster?
Slashdot: Where opinions are just opinions until you have mod points.
I'm a BSD bum, so I haven't paid too much attention to what the left hand's been doing, but...
I was pretty shocked at the time it took Linux to boot, and how big it was. What the hell are they putting in there... two gigabytes, what are they including in Linux these days? Over a minute to boot... how much of that boot time was in the BIOS?
An awful lot of value. Your average Windows user doesn't do a single thing Linux can't do in a default install.
Log into Facebook, talk to their MP3 player (with a couple notable exceptions), listen to music, watch Youtube videos, catch the TV shows they missed online, upload their pictures to Flickr, chat with their friends on MSN and Yahoo, place phone calls with Skype, read their E-mail, and play some online Flash and Java games.
That's the average Windows user, who should really be given a Linux desktop that's less likely to arbitrarily change itself as 3rd party software moves on on the task bar.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Different program, TurboCAD is very specialized in 2D Drafting while NX CAD is a 3d Modelling package. NX is very weak in 2D drafting. I use both of them for different purposes.
There were plenty of times where Vista could easily handle stuff like Firefox with Flash and some other stuff open, but Ubuntu would slow down to a crawl.
1.
Flash is notoriously buggy on Linux. That's one of the reason I hate it and tend to install NoScript plugin in FireFox. We definitely need the Gnash people to accelerate their efforts to bring a decent Flash replacement.
2.
Lots of distributions compile their kernel with a compromise of schedulers and timers between server (high performance) and desktop (high responsiveness).
Lots of distributions compile lots of 32-bit code for the lowest common denominator hardware. Often code is only "Pentium classic" optimised, sometime even "386/486" compatible.
I'm not advocating a "Gentoo let me handcompile and handoptimize everything" approach, but at least giving a couple of alternate kernels with better optimisations for server or desktop loads could help.
(Providing a 386 or 586 comile AND a more optimized one for a couple of core libraries could help too)
Disclaimer : I tend to recompile my kernel (and some libraries from time to time) and tend to see an improvement, so we should really get the distro put some more effort to help users get better out-of-the-box responsiveness.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Tell me instead, how much value would the average Windows user get from GNU/Linux?
To be perfectly fair you would also have to tell us how much value the average GNU/Linux user would get out of Windows as well.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Out of curiosity was there anything you found to be better in OO.org (aside from being free of course)? I'm not exactly a "power user" of the Office products so aside from opening what other people send me I tend not to use them much and as such I've been perfectly happy with OO.org for a while now, but I'm curious how they stack up in the eyes of someone that actually has a use for more than 2% of the features both offer.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
You make too many assumptions.
How much faster does Left 4 Dead run on Linux?
How about Photoshop?
Worked for me. Funny...Mandrake is what got me hooked on KDE, so now I run Kubuntu!
Recently, I decided to take the plunge in installing WinXPProSP2 on my PC, strictly in honor of Fallout 3. .exe, batch scripted for an unattended install...burned to cd.
I work at a state university and have free, legal access to a lot of MS software. There are 6 copies (2 ea of 3 versions) of XP, and two copies of Vista Ultimate sitting on a server with 'my name on them'.
I downloaded a copy of XP Pro SP2 (all are VLK) and used WinRAR to extract the files compressed in an unpacking
No obvious or noticeable CD key/ Lic. key....Hmmm contact tech support.
"Just run the batch file from the command line"
Okay.
My intent was to have a tri-boot system: Win98se, WinXXXXp Pro, and Kubuntu 8.04. Should have been easy, but I did not take into acoount the University's batch file....
I set up 3 partions on an EIDE 200 GB HDD.
30 gb FOR 98SE, 60 gb FOR xp, and the remainder (with a 1gb SWAP) as my ext3 Linux partion.
So far , so good. Win 98se installed without a hitch, installed drivers, and Windows Update. 2 hours tops...cool.
Insert XP cd, reboot...Hah!! well Win 98 hosed, install script ignored it and defaulted to 'C:' for XP install...*sigh*
It freaked out that there was already a Windows folder, and instead of over writing, or giving options, just created "Windows.0' instead. (bear with me, please)*
Went to Windows updates and activation(no troubles)...Aahhh...Sevice Pack 3? Okay.
Long story short...by the time I had a 'complete', patched, and working XP install required 9 1/2 hours, wwith 3 BSOD's trying to install SP3.
Finally done...reinstall Kubuntu 8.04...1 hour 15 minutes to same>functionality of XXP.
Boot times:
From POST to a working desktop where you can click on Firefox and have it actually start, and HDD LED not going nuts:
Kubuntu==43 seconds (includes logging in)
XP==2 minutes, 40 seconds, with no login>default to admin account with no password?!?!?!
* I'm sure this is a fscked up comparison. I will redo now that I have hacked the install batch file, and am hoping for better results.
I also notice tha Kubunto 'seems' quicker and more responsive, but I consider the fscked install to be a major factor.
We will see. :-)
(the hype around Win 7 has me intrigued. I have no interest in Vista though!)
When we get Win 7 on the servers, I might try it in a VM.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Silly rabbits, an OS isn't supposed to be better or work faster, it's supposed to sell required graphics card and memory chips for your vendor partners!
After all, if an OS actually improved, people might get some work done instead of waiting for the cool graphics to indicate the OS was still not finished.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I never would have guessed.
Actually I probably would have.
Install time? Clicks per install? Installed footprint? Does anybody care about those?
The file copy tests were marginally useful, but not exactly controlled. But it certainly looks like the Linux USB drivers and related I/O code is better than what exists in Windows.
Then again, on what is possibly the most useful and meaningful benchmark, Windows wins. The Richards thing is not disk I/O bound, so we're talking about memory allocation/deallocation and probably some underlying C library calls. Since we're on identical hardware, the difference is either due to the Windows memory manager, faster library routines, or a more optimized version of the python interpreter. (Which wouldn't really be a win for Windows per se.)
I'd like to see something like...oh...a standard database benchmark (e.g. TPC) run on a couple different databases (Postgres and Oracle would be fine) installed under both Ubuntu and under Windows 7 on identical hardware. This would, of course, be influenced by how well optimized these database implementations are on each operating system, but there's little we can do about that. The test would essentially be Windows+Oracle vs. Ubuntu+Oracle, or Windows+Postgres vs. Ubuntu+Postgres.
Nobody gives a fuck about Linux because Linux doesn't have a unified billion dollar marketing campaign behind it and because it didn't enter the market pre-installed on all PCs.
Whether Ubuntu is lower or higher quality than Windows isn't even an issue when it comes to market share. Even if Ubuntu could cure cancer it wouldn't matter if nobody knows about it and everyone's already using Windows + software that only works on Windows. That's why market share is an unfair metric.
Hell Budweiser is (as far as I know) the most popular beer in America but I don't know anyone with a clue that would argue it's the best beer in America.
How long will it take to get the installation of the software that I want it to run(correctly) compared with Windows?
I am very seriously interested in Ubuntu, but without software compatibility that is at least as good(as bad?) as Windows, I'll skip it.
Linux - Yay Yay! fast boot, fast shutdown, fast file copy, etc...
Windows - Boo Boo! slow boot, slow use, slow copy etc..
I'll pick Windows any day. I don't have to spend weeks trying to get my hardware working with it. I don't need to find some obscure driver, or sudo apt-get some library that only exists in Peru to make my tv-capture card work.
I am encouraged by the strides that these modern distros have made and I would use linux as my desktop machine if only (and I wish so much) that they would work without making a colossal waste of my time to set up.
I'll put up with the parasitic seconds of waiting in windows, for the hours of time it takes me to configure my system correctly in linux.
How fast does Windows 7 load in an Ubuntu Vmware install, 'cos XP is quite blinding... and that's the only way I'll ever see it.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
As a long time Linux user, I say let's be fair. Try running Photoshop on both Windows and Linux and see which is faster. Now let's run Final Cut Pro and do the test and now try Logic.
My point is "who cares" you buy operating systems so you can run applications, not bench marks.
I really do which Aperture, Logic 8, Photoshop and iTunes ran on Linux.
That said, I do software development on this Linux system but I'll be moving to a Mac Pro maybe this year or next when this dual xeon system gets replaced.
And from the Windows user point of view, who cares how fast Linux is if it can't run some game you want
I dont care how fast a Linux Distro is, its still linux... it lacks plenty of software people use on a daily basis and it has virtually no game support. So no one cares. No one is going to jump ship to it.
Its the Apps... It's always been about the apps....
but all we hear from linux folks is "its faster", "Its not bloated", "it has email and IM and firefox".
Thats not enough.
It's not for a lack of trying--I'd love to be able to say 'wow; I used OO for a month and it kicked Office in the can.'
But all I can say right now is, "It's really not too bad and if you're doing a LOT of work, it's worth the savings."
Won't somebody think of the mosquitoes?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yet again the headline doesn't resemble the facts in the article and the benchmarks chosen are selective, yet some inconveniently show Ubuntu getting thumped. Ubuntu is great, and it is damn fast and lightweight, but Windows 7 is playing catch-up.
All versions of Ubuntu is soundly beaten by Windows 7 64-bit in the Richards benchmark. Reveal authorial bias:
"It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it's not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results."
owned^H^H^H^H
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I have the same graphics card as you. The problem is obviously on your side and you're doing something wrong, because I have no clue what you're talking about.
This is the worst response to a bug complaint I've ever seen. This is on a fresh install with the newest nvidia drivers provided by Jockey... that's it. Using the X configuration present when my system rebooted with the new drivers. That is all. It even tears without Compiz. My Powerbook Pismo has hardware accelerated display and does not tear in Mac OS X like my brand new desktop-- maybe it has something to do with the fact that their windowing system was designed for the desktop!
HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.
CLUEHAMMER: The average user will notice things like Ubuntu copying a directory full of a bunch of little files in 5 minutes, while Windows is still calculating space so it can show you a pretty and worthless progress bar and a "time remaining" countdown that's never even close to accurate.
Here's what they will notice:
It's not microsoft.
Yeah buddy, you got that right.
it's not what they have at work.
Yeah, because everyone has such fond thoughts about how well their computer runs at work (no offense to any corporate IT reading this, your job's way harder than mine)
It doesn't run everything.
It runs Linux programs, it runs Windows programs, it runs DOS programs, it runs Playstation games, it slices, dices, makes julianne fries. You know what doesn't run everything? Windows.
And instructions for installing stuff don't work.
Unless you misspelled "apt-get", I really think you're full of shit.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I use Ubuntu, but not because it's fast. A clean Windows XP box sitting behind a properly-configured firewall is a heck of a lot more responsive than Ubuntu or Kubuntu: The GUI and window manager are more lightweight, there are fewer abstraction layers in the way (X-Windows is awesome for its network transparency, but lightweight it is not -- doubly so when running KDE/Gnome), and you can usually expect the drivers and software to be more-optimized on Windows.
Try running a Youtube video fullscreen on a 'buntu box. Single digit framerates are not fast. Try playing a video in mplayer, or a DVD: It's usually fast enough, but it's obviously doing more in software than the equivalent Windows codecs, because videos stutter that used to play fine when the same machine ran XP.
No, Ubuntu is in fact slower. For me it makes up for this in flexibility, configurability, and (sometimes -- it really depends what I'm trying to do) ease of use. But if I really wanted performance, I'd either run a fresh, clean, locked-down XP, or a stripped-down Debian install, depending on what I needed.
wake me up when the shutdown time on my machine is as fast as it was on my 486. "click. off."
I don't like the idea of my computer winding down. It makes me want to shut it down with my mallet.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
An independant site finds that Windows 7 is faster than Vista and it is "controversial".
A Linux fanboy site finds that Linux is faster than Windows 7 and it is the unbidden truth.
If the case were reversed, slashdotters would be howling about how the site was lying.
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If the Ubuntu install is freezing its normally because of a hardware issue, or the CD was not burned correctly. I've only once had a Ubunutu install fail on me and that was when I was installing it on a machine with a dying disk controller. With a bit of persistence Ubuntu installed and I was able to pull data off the hard drive XP refused to boot from. I'd first check that the CD is in good working order and then the hardware.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Better absolute performance, perhaps. Better value? Value is a personal judgment. I "like" Linux well enough, but I won't use it because I feel it to be, in fact, a rather poor value. But that's just because my priorities are different.
Even with faster "absolute performance", it's entirely possible due to other reasons that the actual time it takes for a given end-user to complete a task increases. Who cares if your disk I/O is twice as fast, if it takes you twice as long to navigate the user interface to perform a disk operation?
So does this mean the I/O wait bug has been squashed? Or is Linux going to be even better once it's fixed? And a stupid question, were any benchmarks that would trigger this bug tried? Does W7 have the same issues?
Just because joe-user doesn't have write access to a system file, or they dont have execute permissions on a mounted disk doesn't mean they don't have write access to a system file, or they don't have execute permission on a mounted disk. All it takes is a single exploit of some poorly coded program to happily grant them permission.
Linux boxes are not immune to ownage. All boxes are able to be owned. All it takes is a badly administrated box--the parent is right.
Wait, Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10 are still alpha? I knew 9.04 is, but 9.04 isn't the only version in this benchmark.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
This is sounding seriously like Star Wars. Poor Microsoft, they had such talent, and more midichlorians than anyone else, but alas they are falling to the next generation's rising star.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Bitterness is difficult to hide if you count up all the lost time in my life thanks to *nix.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
Nobody gives a fuck about Linux because Linux doesn't have a unified billion dollar marketing campaign behind it
Than I suggest to stop portraying shite like Ubuntu as a contender to Vista/7. An honest benchmark would be Ubuntu vs. Windows 3.11 - the hardware support and usability are on par for those two.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
If I am going to buy a netbook with a 1.6 GHz Atom CPU, 1 GB of RAM and integrated graphics, I'm going to want something that runs fast.
I think it's a mistake to buy a netbook to use to do anything that requires more speed than surfing the net. If you need something faster but portable then get a laptop.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why in hell does it take over a minute to boot these systems? OSX on my older Mac Pro takes about 25 seconds. Shutdown takes like 4-5 seconds.
Although XP on the same machine boots slower, it took less than a minute.
What pray tell, besides Microsoft's video editing tool, do you think comes with Windows that isn't on Linux?
Playback of patented audio and video formats, such as MP3 audio, Dolby Digital audio, and MPEG-2 video. Windows Home Premium comes with a licensed DVD-Video player; Ubuntu Desktop does not. Besides, don't discount the importance of Windows Movie Maker to the dadaist phenomenon called YouTube Poop.
So use another printer. CUPS, Common Unix Printing System, works with other printers. I had three different printers work with it, and all I did was plug them in.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I read the headline and thought installing Ubuntu would wipe a Windows 7 partition.
Ubuntu's installer can wipe your Windows installation, but only if you tell it to. This might happen if you're repurposing a PC that had been running a Microsoft Access-based app on Windows in favor of a different app capable of running on Ubuntu. In another four to five years, people will probably face such a decision about PCs running Windows 7.
1st: it's a beta 2nd: it has been done by a linux fan, just check the url 3rd: install time longer in w7 than in vista? are you kidding me???
I don't care how much space the install takes up
It matters to me, the less hdd space the OS takes the more space I have for files.
I don't care how long it takes to install because I only do that once and I don't care how long it takes to boot-up because I leave my computers on.
I may bootup and shutdown 2 or 3 tymes a day.
Of the remaining two, I rarely if ever copy files from USB to HD
I do the opposite, copy files from the HDD to an external drive. I used to use a USB 2 drive, which was slow but now I use a Firewire 800 drive which is faster.
I have no idea how well this benchmark represents common task I perform such as browsing, movie watching and game playing.
My common tasks are browsing, design, programming, and photography.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Very Interesting test. It is better than Linux vs Linux =) I wondered boot time of Ubuntu is higer than Windows 7.
ubuntu 8.10 and Vista SP1 aren't betas
The comparison of the install-time is not really realistic as with Ubuntu you get a complete working desktop system, including an office package. With Windows that's a whole different product you need to install seperately.
I value the ability to easily install, manage, and update all my software through a uniform interface to trusted repositories.
Until you run into a niche app that's not in the official repository. How many weeks does a needs-packaging request in Launchpad typically take, even if the free app builds from the source tarball with few to no issues? Or until you run into a type of app not well served by the free software community, such as non-puzzle games or (say) retail/warehouse management.
I appreciate efficient shortcuts like higlight-and-middle-click to copy text.
I appreciate not having to connect an external mouse to my notebook computer just to copy text.
I've also had, by far, less hassle installing Linux than Windows.
For most people, installing Windows happens automagically even before the computer is put into the foam and cardboard packaging.
Value to me is reliability, choice and quality of software, and minimial fuss with configuring devices and hardware.
Value to me is seeing the operating system's logo on the box of a peripheral to ensure driver compatibility, and I see a lot more four-color flags than penguins at a typical Best Buy. Value to me is not having to repurchase perfectly working hardware that happens not to have a driver on Linux. Had I known that I would eventually want to switch to Linux a few years later, I would not have bought a Microtek ScanMaker 4850 flatbed scanner, which isn't in SANE and whose manufacturer never returned my e-mails.
Please do not compare a bestbuy installed windows with a downloaded iso linux
Except there's no "bestbuy installed linux" to speak of. I was in a Best Buy store this past week, and I saw exactly one Linux machine made by ASUS. All the rest were a few Macs, a metric ton of Vista boxes, and a couple XP netbooks.
In windows you have to google-hunt a program, pray it's clean, download, scan, install. In linux you open the package manager, select it and click "apply".
Unless the niche app that you want to use isn't packaged for your distro, and the needs-packaging bug is sitting in the distro's bug tracker. Then the process is similar to Windows: google-hunt, download, make, sudo make install.
Becuase, as we all know, a 6 GB installation of an OS is absolutely horrendously huge, given the exorbitant cost of disk storage these days. Man, 1/166th of my 1TB drive gone because Windows!
A 6 GB installation of an operating system is huge on a netbook with an 8 GB flash drive. How much current does it take to spin your computer's 1 TB drive? And how resistant is it to bumps and drops?
The biggest advantage to Linux in my opinion is the ability to update the various tools you need with one click or command; in Windows you can't even update all of the Microsoft products with one click.
I've had to click, and reboot, more than once when I've updated Linux. That was a couple of years ago and things may be better now though.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
MMmm. You're likely to be modded troll, and you'll deserve it. I'll enjoy watching.
I do it on the command line - sometime in the next week or so I'll be putting Gentoo on my new machine. No clicks, all tappity-tappity on the keyboard.
Same here, but with Ubuntu Server. The past few days I've spent at least a few hours a day researching how best to install Ubuntu Server on my MacBook Pro. It'll take a couple of more days at least before I'm ready. Today I found what looks like a good book to install Ubuntu, but I'll probably need more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And why is this? Because when MS even tries to include a web browser and a media player, they get their asses chewed out by the EU for anticompetitive behavior. You can't expect MS to provide nothing and everything at the same time...
Bundling isn't the problem, the problem was when Microsoft told OEMs they could install Microsoft products but not competitors' products. Way back when I would of liked the option between MS Word and Word Perfect, Internet Explorer and/or Netscape.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As someone who switched over to linux four years ago and was still using her machine with 256MB of RAM until a week ago, all I've got to say is "Well... duh."
(motherboard bug made it stupid-picky with ram)
... if it doesn't run software i wish to run, then it doesn't matter how fast it is. Yes, i'm a linux user from way back, but really I don't care how fast my operating system runs, within limits. its more to do with what I can run on it. when falcon 4 runs on Linux I'll consider ditching my windows install :D
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I experience similar symptoms on my first-gen MBP from time to time.
Check for applications/daemons (particularly scanner and peripheral helpers) launching from the various StartupItems folders. Also, the startup sequence sometimes inserts a hard disk check if you've shut down uncleanly recently, or if the disk is dieing. Also, try installing the next OS X _combo_ update when it becomes available, as the small deltas in sequence are alleged to miss some files on occasion.
Also, some older builds of 10.5 combine the "generate previews of files" thread/functionality into Finder in such a way that every file that is visible must have its preview icon generated before Finder will respond to anything else. A desktop full of previewable items will add many seconds to the time it takes to get to a productive state from the login prompt. Apple has recently reconfigured the preview functionality as a separate process or some such to fix the issue.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
I'm pretty sure AOL can beat you. They've got more CDs than even you can handle.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And why would I need any of those?
is always no. The internet is not for sissies.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
True, there was one interesting metric where Windows got its ass kicked (copying small files around). But for the most part, I saw no major ownage. In fact, it showed that Windows did a better job with large files and had a faster turn-around time to boot & shut-down.
While Windows 7 did bootup and move large files from one place to another on the same drive faster it was slower when shut down. The Shutdown Time chart shows the slowest version of Ubuntu taking 10 seconds to shutdown whereas Windows 7 took 13.4 seconds. Then for copying large files from USB flash drive to hard disk Windows 7 took 19.6 seconds whereas the slowest Ubuntu took 19.4 seconds.
In general it looks pretty much like it's a wash, though Windows 7 was faster than previous versions of Windows.
Other than that, they stacked up pretty evenly (at least the x86 versions of Ubuntu 9.04 & Windows 7 - That's all I was really looking at).
They didn't test the version of Ubuntu I was interested in, the 64 bit server edition. I'm hoping to install it in the next few days.
How exactly did "Ubuntu Wipe Windows 7"?
As usual it seems /. editors didn't RTFA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I bought my first computer in 1998. A few weeks later I went shopping for some typical apps (Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, Triple Play Japanese) when I saw an atypical "app": Red Hat 5.0. I was impressed by the presence of GNU Emacs, GCC, and TeX/LaTeX, which I use (the first and last) far more than any boxed application. Why didn't I just download the Windows versions? Because the only internet connection I had was dialup.
What is more complicated? Configuring Ubuntu or deciding which version of Windows 7 to install.
Eclipse PDE and Me
We'll use a Linux distro that fits on a 650MB CD and a Windows one that is on a 2.15GB DVD...I wonder which one will win.
And then we'll use some poncy benchmark that nobody has ever heard of and has no real world relevence to prove Linux is better than Windows 7.
I think we've just about tweaked it enough in our favour that we stand a chance
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I think I made it clear enough, that XP would have been much closer to the performance of Linux if M$ had stuck with it and not pursued objectives that had nothing to do with the performance or usability of the operating system, they choose to abandon the development effort and, years of trial and error correction put into XP, basically throwing away that investment capital, so a very poor management choice that has nothing to do with the skill of M$ coders.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Can I run all the applications I'm forced to use during the day on Ubuntu? I live in a windows application world. When you can EASILY configure and setup a desktop so a "dumb user" can use it, then I might look at it.
Also, I'm using Ubuntu because it only provides a single program for one task (one media player, one browser, etc.). Other distros install a bunch of programs leaving the newbie to decide what the heck could possibly be a good program - which is a terrible situation!
But Ubuntu rocks anyways, even if you have to install codecs (which don't come preinstalled - DVD or mp3 anyone?) and need Windows for real gaming.
yes, that'll teach me.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
On quality, not on price. Remember that if necessary Microsoft will distribute Windows for free or even pay you to use it. So Linux can't win solely on price tab. But quality is where it has an upper hand.
I prefer kdenlive.
Windows Vista - 10 minutes
Windows 7 - 8 minutes
Ubuntu - 8 days
Feel free to make a cogent rebuttal if you don't like my assertions. All I see is a kindergarten level red herring of a reply.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
My point was that most people who want a laptop want to be able to get business done on it, or school, or apply for a job. Lots of people like to get work done (even coding) on the airplane.
I bought my 17" laptop to get work done. This economy isn't well for it but I want to start working as a developer and photographer.
I was kind of venting too. I wish I could get away with running just Linux for business
Okay.
In a netbook situation, where I may not have gigabytes up on gigabytes of storage for dual booting, I will have to go with Windows.
Yea, when I got my MBP the largest 7200 rmp hdd, which is needed for graphics and photography, for it was 160GB. As I only had about 25GB of free space on it a few weeks ago I replaced the hdd with a 320GB hdd. Now I'm thinking about setting up the laptop to dualboot by installing Ubuntu. If so what I'll do is make 3 partitions on the hdd, one for Leopard, one for Ubuntu, and one for user files. I'm not sure but I think I'll give each OS partition 30 to 50 GB.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I put every server option I could on before installation via LiveCD.
Ubuntu Server doesn't come on a LiveCD or DVD. I did read somewhere that the standard Ubuntu can be installed then the software needed to set it up as a server can be downloaded. That's probably what I'll do, basically what I want is a webserver, perl, a database, and maybe Ruby on Rails.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Microsoft pursued objectives to try to shore up security. Other than they ruined the GUI behavior, people *have* remarked that Vista is at least more secure than XP. To do this required some really ugly back end code changes.
Problem was, they *did* try to use XP, and somewhere in the process discoverd the world's biggest "Oh $hit". For reasons beyond me, they simply ran up against a brutal flaw that simply couldn't be bandaided any more.
So, they grabbed one of the server code bases, that had been built a bit more intelligently, and restarted from that. Check Paul Thurrott's pages. I know, he's a paid MS promoter, but he gets permission to post key stories which explain queries like yours, which was essentially what everyone was wondering.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
i have a DAW that also plays games.
They will never stop until somebody makes the