Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

i've got most of it, just a few more items and i'm done ;)

If Michael is still reading this, what happened to the rest of the tests?

Yeah, that's what I wonder as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phoronix

Phoronix: Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

While Linux has long been talked about as being a faster operating system than Microsoft Windows, in 2010 is this still the case? It seems every time we deliver new benchmarks of the EXT4 file-system it's actually getting slower, recent Linux kernel releases have not been delivering any major performance enhancements for desktop users, the open-source Linux graphics drivers are still no match to the proprietary drivers, and "bloated and huge" is how Linus Torvalds described the Linux kernel last year. This is all while Windows 7 was released last year, which many view as Microsoft's best operating system release to date. Even after using it a fair amount the past few months in preparation for this about-to-be-shared work, it is actually not too bad and is a huge improvement over Windows Vista, but is it really faster than Ubuntu Linux? We have used six uniquely different systems and ran Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS x86_64 on each of them with a set of 55 tests (actually, more than 165 if considering that each test is usually run at least three times for accuracy) per installation.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14887

---

IT IS VERY EASY TO PROVE WINDOWS 7 IS ACTUALLY SLOWER THAN ANY LINUX. MY COMPUTER CONFIGURATION IS CORE 2 DUO T5750 WITH 4 GB RAM 250 GB 5400RPM HDD. I HAVE WINDOWS 7,OPENSUSE AND UBUNTU 10.04 INSTALLED ON THE SAME MACHINE. I INSTALLED THE LATEST VERSION OF GOOGLE CHROME AND RAN THE PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK. ALL GOOGLE CHROME ARE OF SAME VERSION. WINDOWS 7 I GOT 5027 OPENSUSE I GOT 5987 AND UBUNTU I GOT 5873. PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK ONE YOU CAN RELY ACROSS OS. PLEASE TEST IT BY YOURSELF. THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINK FOR PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK TRY BY YOURSELF.

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sk_vignesh

IT IS VERY EASY TO PROVE WINDOWS 7 IS ACTUALLY SLOWER THAN ANY LINUX. MY COMPUTER CONFIGURATION IS CORE 2 DUO T5750 WITH 4 GB RAM 250 GB 5400RPM HDD. I HAVE WINDOWS 7,OPENSUSE AND UBUNTU 10.04 INSTALLED ON THE SAME MACHINE. I INSTALLED THE LATEST VERSION OF GOOGLE CHROME AND RAN THE PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK. ALL GOOGLE CHROME ARE OF SAME VERSION. WINDOWS 7 I GOT 5027 OPENSUSE I GOT 5987 AND UBUNTU I GOT 5873. PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK ONE YOU CAN RELY ACROSS OS. PLEASE TEST IT BY YOURSELF. THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINK FOR PEACEKEEPER BROWSER BENCHMARK TRY BY YOURSELF.

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

---

well, you don't need to shout :D

anyways: did you disable cpu frequency switching or did you make sure that it's clocked at peak performance before benchmarking ? since - if not - that is falsifying results to a huge degree

and yes: even today Linux is still the fastest and even faster than Windows (7) - even under largest load it (Linux) is still usable whereas windows (7) is not (the extreme is antivirus-scanning which always reliably makes windows stuttering :p - you have to account for that, too - since it's simply a part of Windows "culture" :D)


they really should introduce something like low-latency I/O subsystem setting - afaik it's handled via userspace in Windows whereas in Linux it's handled from the kernel side

from what I understood:

apps can say they are using low latency functionality and windows uses it - so it's a per-program setting ??? (more flexibility)

whereas on Linux you have direct control over it (more instant-power/control)

from what I understood:

apps can say they are using low latency functionality and windows uses it - so it's a per-program setting ??? (more flexibility)

whereas on Linux you have direct control over it (more instant-power/control)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth

and yes: even today Linux is still the fastest and even faster than Windows (7) - even under largest load it (Linux) is still usable whereas windows (7) is not (the extreme is antivirus-scanning which always reliably makes windows stuttering :p - you have to account for that, too - since it's simply a part of Windows "culture" :D)


they really should introduce something like low-latency I/O subsystem setting - afaik it's handled via userspace in Windows whereas in Linux it's handled from the kernel side

---

I ran the peacekeeper benchmark on windows 7 without installing any antivirus. If I run peacekeeper benchmark with good antivirus I would have not got even 3000 points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth

well, you don't need to shout :D

anyways: did you disable cpu frequency switching or did you make sure that it's clocked at peak performance before benchmarking ? since - if not - that is falsifying results to a huge degree

---

I shout since it is needed at this time when every one is paying money out of their pocket and buy windows when a more efficient OS is out there free. You may ask me why I am using it because it came with the laptop installed free. I did the benchmark on Lenovo ideapad it has frequency switch, which I set it to maximum power for windows 7 and there is no antivirus or any background process running at that time. For ubuntu and opensuse there is no frequency switch. I would say if I use cpu frequency (comes with all gnome linux) I would have got a higher score on linux.