Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 170

Thread: Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Especially if one wants to "hopefully dispel all sorts of myths and FUD".

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    22

    Default

    The chart colours for CI7 on the X-Plane chart (page 9) are around the wrong way.

    I'm also irked that one can't compare between CPUs (to help make a purchase decisions for future CPUs/video cards) as the memory amount and video card changes for each system.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    One other thing I would suggest, especially on the gaming tests is to run them with sound enabled as this could have measurable effects on game play.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    Windows is still a lot better for desktop, where latency and GUI response matters. There's is no good DE today, none of them are optimized or are memory efficient. They're are slow, featureless, and they suck.
    It's only better in 2D and maybe in 3D. You should rather say GUI latency/responsiveness, because Linux kernel is much more responsive. Windows DE sucks because it's not as half feature rich as KDE (I know you're a Gnome troll, so I'm not surprised why did you said this). Windows is not memory efficient - my 32 bit XP consumed more memory then my 64bit Arch Linux (I couldn't believe!), I can only imagine how amount of memory Windows 7 consumes. It's slow (except graphics).

    Scheduler performance (average, worse):

    Linux: 0.009mS 0.3mS
    Windows: 2mS scheduling latency 16mS

    http://widefox.pbworks.com/Scheduler#Timeslice

    Windows looks like a big, fat cow. If you cannot backup what you said just be a nice troll and be quiet, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
    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."?
    It's sad the title is misleading and introduction is very irritating. The newest graphic drivers were tested (which have different versions!) and not the ones which are parts of both systems(?), so the tittle "Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04" sounds misleading. Introduction sounds fuddish too, because those performance differences are rather because of differences in graphic drivers which were used and not because of Ext4 or "kernel getting bloated, because its package is big". At least, the last page is free of marketing talk.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    I would like to see a benchmark using EXT 4 on a spinning platter hard drive... It seems like all the benchmarks are using SSDs.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    Windows is still a lot better for desktop, where latency and GUI response matters. There's is no good DE today, none of them are optimized or are memory efficient. They're are slow, featureless, and they suck.
    Windows might be better for a desktop than Ubuntu Linux, but it is by no means better than Linux. Ubuntu Linux has kernel that is optimized for servers, which prevents a fair comparison from being done of Linux and Windows. Just the fact that Linux is represented by Ubuntu does not mean that it is a fair representation of what Linux can actually do.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,393

    Default

    I'm setting up the PTS on Win7 right now myself, and I see that UT2004 isn't integrated into it yet, so I can understand why it wasn't included in the test then. When will it be implemented, by the way?
    Also, a test based on Unreal Engine 3 would be awesome since a lot of current day games run on it... However, I'm not aware of any UE3 games on Linux, although it's obviously possible (we even saw UT3 screenshots on Linux...).

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post

    Scheduler performance (average, worse):

    Linux: 0.009mS 0.3mS
    Windows: 2mS scheduling latency 16mS

    http://widefox.pbworks.com/Scheduler#Timeslice

    Windows looks like a big, fat cow. If you cannot backup what you said just be a nice troll and be quiet, please.
    With all due respect Kraftman that link is a bit dated. We know for a fact that there has been performance regressions introduced since 2.6.28 and that Win 7 has improved it's performance over Vista so that link isn't exactly representative of current offerings.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    One other thing I would suggest, especially on the gaming tests is to run them with sound enabled as this could have measurable effects on game play.
    Yeah, especially under Gnome with Pulse Audio enabled.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    With all due respect Kraftman that link is a bit dated. We know for a fact that there has been performance regressions introduced since 2.6.28 and that Win 7 has improved it's performance over Vista so that link isn't exactly representative of current offerings.
    Which and where (in both cases Linux and Windows)?

Posting Permissions

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