Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 170

Thread: Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,373

    Default Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default

    The article is only a Ubuntu vs Windows comparison, not Linux vs Windows. Ubuntu does not represent Linux. If you want to compare performance of Windows and Linux, you should choose Linux From Scratch (LFS) or Slackware.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BhaKi View Post
    The article is only a Ubuntu vs Windows comparison, not Linux vs Windows. Ubuntu does not represent Linux. If you want to compare performance of Windows and Linux, you should choose Linux From Scratch (LFS) or Slackware.
    It would be pretty pointless to compare LFS to Windows 7 since it doesn't even have X, let alone a modern desktop environment. Slackware might work, but I don't see how it's any more representative of Linux (let alone desktop Linux) than Ubuntu is.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    624

    Default

    thanks for your efforts with the benchmarks Michael !

    IMO it would however be even MORE interesting to see some productivity tests especially concerning latency ("lagging" of the mouse pointer) and possibility of using the GUI during heavy I/O

    in those cases the Linux-Kernel with >2.6.33 (2.6.34 in that regard is perfect) with CFQ and CFS (or BFS) schedulers are the only platform at which I can almost always work - even Windows 7 64bit Home Premium is unusable (Windows 2008 R2 Server should be somewhat better but I don't have time to test that)

    some work cases:

    - copying 700 GiBs of data from one partition to another (with both partitions encrypted)
    - indexing around 140,000 files (mostly PDF ebooks and universitary scripts) with an desktop search engine (e.g. recoll, beagle, tracker, pinot, etc.) which continually puts load on the CPU and harddrives - under windows an example would be copernic desktop search (the others I tried including docfetcher, puggle wouldn't index all files and only a pretty low folder hierarchy; google-desktop would pause during I/O)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Slackware might work, but I don't see how it's any more representative of Linux (let alone desktop Linux) than Ubuntu is.
    Slackware's kernel, drivers and packages are mainline vanilla ones without any Slackware-specific patches. Plus, the kernel configuration options are tuned for performance. Ubuntu is heavily patched. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing or that Ubuntu is a bad OS. I'm just saying that it's not truely Linux. And run the command "zcat /proc/config.gz" on both Ubuntu and Slackware. You'll find that there's lot more bloat in Ubuntu's kernel than Slackware's.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BhaKi View Post
    The article is only a Ubuntu vs Windows comparison, not Linux vs Windows. Ubuntu does not represent Linux. If you want to compare performance of Windows and Linux, you should choose Linux From Scratch (LFS) or Slackware.
    Gentoo would be a better choice, although I think that for a proper comparison, all that would be necessary is a custom kernel. All of the tests done are graphical tests, which the default Ubuntu kernel is horribly unoptimized to do. The default Ubuntu kernel is compiled for servers. It needs to be recompiled with 1000Hz, Dynamic Ticks, Kernel Preemption and RCU Preemption to be properly optimized for a desktop environment.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BhaKi View Post
    The article is only a Ubuntu vs Windows comparison, not Linux vs Windows. Ubuntu does not represent Linux. If you want to compare performance of Windows and Linux, you should choose Linux From Scratch (LFS) or Slackware.
    Linux is what Linux users use, and like it's mentioned in the article most Linux installations are Ubuntu.

    If you are so eager to criticise, find time to carry out these tests on your own on either Gentoo or LFS.

    But then we will argue vehemently about the GCC flags which have to be used in order to compile those two distros.

    Ubuntu is an established Linux distro. If you don't understand it, or don't like this fact, please, do not comment here and please, refrain from reading Phoronix articles.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    Well i would have use Kanotix instead of Ubuntu but the results are logical to some degree. However there was no killer app under the multiplattform ones to be only useable with Win (except games on i3). Usually Win drivers select a specific optimization for an app/game depending on the executeable name. I expected this at least for Unigine Heaven, but maybe only in the DX modes. ATI seems to be even too stupid to deliver good Win drivers as SpecViewPerf does not run correctly there.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Despite Linux graphical drivers have improved a lot in last years, Windows graphical performance is still the stronget aspect of Windows platform. Maybe that's because this aspect has been worked for years in Windows and Linux graphical system and drivers have to walk this way as well. Hopefully in two years we can talk about the opposite result! :-)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grumelude View Post
    Despite Linux graphical drivers have improved a lot in last years, Windows graphical performance is still the stronget aspect of Windows platform. Maybe that's because this aspect has been worked for years in Windows and Linux graphical system and drivers have to walk this way as well. Hopefully in two years we can talk about the opposite result! :-)
    I thought the conclusion was that Windows and Ubuntu were pretty much the same, with some wins for Windows and some wins for Ubuntu. Michael actually says so specifically. On the last page, he quotes a myth that has been busted. Maybe he should have explicitly said "This is clearly false; the performance is pretty much the same."?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •