Slashdot Log In
Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:22 AM
from the windows-probably-runs-more-windows-apps dept.
from the windows-probably-runs-more-windows-apps dept.
Anonymous writes "By now a lot has been reported on the new features and improvements in Ubuntu 8.10; it also looks like the OS is outperforming Vista in early benchmarking (Geekbench, boot times, etc.) At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?" (And though there are lot of ways to benchmark computers, Ubuntu 8.10 with Compiz Fusion is certainly prettier on my Eee than the Windows XP that it came with.)
Related Stories
Submission: Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: Ubuntu vs. Windows In OpenOffice.org Benchmark 262 comments
ahziem writes "Ubuntu's Intrepid Ibex and Redmond's Windows XP go head-to-head in an OpenOffice.org 3.0 performance smackdown measuring vanilla OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, Go-oo, and Portable OpenOffice.org 3.0. Each platform and edition does well in different tests. Go-oo is known for its proud slogan "Better, Faster, Freer," but last time with OpenOffice.org 2.4 on Fedora, Go-oo came in fourth place out of four. Slashdot has previously reported Ubuntu beating Vista and Windows 7 in benchmarks, so either XP is faster or this benchmark carries a different weight."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, I would be far more-impressed if I saw the headline "Ubuntu outperforms XP". Now that would be truly something.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
My thought exactly. Well, almost. My first thought was that a snail towing a 65-ton truck might outperform Vista, but I'm very polite.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista is so slow as to be utterly useless - it came with my laptop, and after waiting 10 minutes for it to boot up, I reformatted and put Ubuntu on it.
If you're doing processor-heavy work (for example, recoding a DVD), I've yet to find anything faster than an N-lited copy of XP. You can slim down Ubuntu, but I'm not Linux savvy enough to do this yet.
And if you're playing games, the drivers in Ubuntu are so piss-poor that you'll see a 10-20% drop in framerates (this is an Nvidia 7900 GS, benchmarked in Unreal 2004 max settings, same hardware). ATI drivers don't even fucking work, so I can't even compare them to the XP ones on my laptop (if anyone knows how to get an X1250 working in Kubuntu with ATI's proprietary drivers, respond. Machine crashes on resume, games crash on screen resolution change or exit).
So it breaks down like this, in my experience:
Out of the box XP gets it ass handed to it by Ubuntu.
Ubuntu gets beat (slightly) by an N-Lited XP.
Everything beats Vista.
Startup times vary based largely on RAID array type (hard drive speed if you're in a laptop) and processor speed, but always go (slowest to fastest): Vista, Ubuntu, XP, 2000, N-Lited XP. Installing more programs slows this down in XP, but not enough for Ubuntu to beat it.
Also, (this is settings related) torrents seem to run about 25-50 kb/s faster on Ubuntu than they do on Windows. I suspect this is related to half-open TCP/IP connections, but I don't know.
Feel free to correct me if your mileage varies.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:4, Informative)
Is
Not an
Emulator!
It is *quite* [linux-watch.com] possible, and it wouldn't be the first report of better performance in WINE than in Windows.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu after 6 months of use beats XP used for 6 months.
That's easy. Windows get's clogged up with so much crap that in 6 months it's dead in the water. Hell simply installing webroot or another low grade Virus/spy service on XP and it's dog slow city. Most users also install every single crapware they can get their hands on, weatherbug, etc....
Thankfully there is none of that crap for Ubuntu/Linux..... yet.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
"You have viruses on your system! We've installed and will remind you of this every 5 minutes until you buy the full version of our product"
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is nigh impossible to do on Windows because the entire software distribution system is centered around installing random unknown software off CD/DVD's or off the Internet.
On most linux distros, all the software you'd need is checksummed, signed and can verified.
On Microsoft Windows, you get a sweet hologram sticker... sometimes!
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Informative)
Just to chime in with the other people here, I have two systems on my desk at work. One is a two year old Dell laptop with an Intel Core Due processor with 2GB of RAM. It runs XP. The other is a four year old Dell desktop with a Pentium 4 and 1GB of RAM. It runs Ubuntu 8.10.
Guess which one is much, much faster?
The Ubuntu 8.10 desktop, of course.
Part of it is due to all the corporate crap-ware that gets installed on the machine. There's the virus scanner, the software firewall, and the automatic patch system. (And Adobe's automatic patch system, and Apple's automatic patch system, and Google's automatic patch system, and Sun's automatic patch system...)
But a greater part is that Ubuntu is just plain faster. It uses less RAM, it hits the disk less, and it just runs faster.
My general routine at the start of a day is to start the XP laptop booting, boot up the Ubuntu desktop, and then play around with the Ubuntu desktop while I wait for Windows to finally get to the point where it can slowly get Outlook up and going.
Out of curiosity, I ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark [webkit.org] under Firefox 3.0.3 on both systems. The Ubuntu system finished with a total of 4.4 seconds to run all tests. The XP machine finished in 11.4 seconds. The 95% confidence intervals for the XP machine seem to suggest that performance changed wildly on some test runs - presumably caused by random background activity.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:4, Interesting)
i'm running XP pro on a P4 2.0ghz with 2gb of ram and it takes my system on average less than one minute from completely off to comlpetely loaded desktop. but i pay attention to the software that runs on my system, and i use msconfig to make sure that nothing is loading that i don't want to load.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
People often compare a clean windows install to a clean linux install, forgetting that a clean linux install is a fully usable system that's ready to go, while a clean windows install is largely useless until you install a significant number of third party apps.
The hidden costs of windows...
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Informative)
My experience is the exactly the opposite. Never had a windows box to join my wireless network without significant fiddling. Of course, I'm careful to make sure any wireless card I get with Linus comes with an Atheros chip.
Parent
Re:I thought the proper metric was suckage.... (Score:5, Funny)
As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...
I'm sure that feature will be removed prior to the release date.
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just more sensationalism.
I run Ubuntu 8.10 and yet I am somehow able to assess the situation pragmatically. As it sits, if I were to install Windows on my Ubuntu box, then I would probably make up the cost (aka "Micro$oft tax) with the annual power savings - Ubuntu *still* doesn't suspend-to-ram on my system (Biostar nforce 6150 motherboard with an Athlon X2 processor).
And while I try to shut the system down, when possible, I always find myself walking away for "just a moment" only to find myself not returning until the next day (or more). When Ubuntu can put up the functionality of Windows (including power management), then it becomes a proper comparison. Until then, it pains me to defend Microsoft...
Parent
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So what? Not news, though the reverse would be (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Windows XP also outperforms Windows Vista. Windows 7 will ALSO likely outperform Windows Vista. Just about EVERYTHING outperforms Windows Vista.
What really would have made this news is if Ubuntu had performed worse than Windows Vista.
Parent
Re:So what? Not news, though the reverse would be (Score:5, Funny)
It's also far more apt at connecting to the internet, what with the internet being a series of tubes and all.
Parent
YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't that last year? Let's just say instead it's the decade of Linux on The Desktop.
Parent
Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
2003 was the year of Linux on the desktop. For me, that's when I put Mandriva on it.
Now if you're talking about Linux on the average person's desktop, I fear we may never have it. [slashdot.org]
Yes, I'm quoting myself.
Parent
Re:YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Only the truly talented can quote themselves before they even post!
Only the truly talented can quote themselves before they even post!
Parent
Re:YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, the year of the Linux desktop was last year.
This is the year of the Linux netboot.
Get with the program.
Parent
Re:YES! (Score:4, Interesting)
When I use the package system, it's wonderful. And when something that I actually need or want actually *is* on another website, then Ubuntu turns into a pain in the ass for me. I'm looking at you, Songbird!
Parent
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
because Vista is a bloated mess, but Windows is still the predominant OS, and it will remain that way until the popular games & applications that real people/businesses use are available for Ubuntu.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
Windows is still the predominant OS, and it will remain that way until the popular games...
have you been inside a bar in the last ten years? Those MegaTouch game machines you put the dollar in that sit on the bar itself use Linux as their OS. I don't know of a single bar that doesn't have one, they're incredibly popular. People shove dollars in them right and left.
& applications that real people/businesses use are available for Ubuntu.
Open Office reads and writes Microsoft Office files. The real reason Open Source hasn't taken off is corporate FUD. The corporate media pound into everyone's heads that "free == worthless", which is utter nonsense (how much did you pay for the air you're breathing? yesterday's sunset? A walk through the woods? A smile?)
People think anything free must be crap, and the media (owned by money-worshipers) propagate this ignorant paradigm.
Parent
Is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux speed and faster boots have never been enough to win the desktop.
Exactly. This isn't what users care about.
A common myth among website developers is that, if your page takes longer than ~8-10 seconds to load, users are going to move elsewhere. However, repeated studies have shown that this is not the case. Extrapolating a bit, users don't really care *that* much about speed. I mean, obvious problems are...well...problems. But, the fact that Vista copies files more slowly than XP, or the fact that Ubuntu boots 10 seconds more quickly is not going to convince anybody.
There's inherent costs with switching to a new operating system. Retraining, porting apps (or learning completely new apps), unfamiliarity and change. And, that last one is huge. People dislike change. They will typically go out of their way to avoid change. So, despite Apple's marketing, despite the excellent improvements in OSS, people will stick with Vista. Why? Because it's easy and most people don't care otherwise.
What do users want? Well, I'm only guessing a bit here, but based on my usability work, they want: familiarity, ease-of-use, "prettiness" (yes...people are shallow...big surprise) and various other things that have nothing to do with a truly good app. Perceived "goodness" is far better than actual goodness. This is why, even though Linux applications tend to run faster, when they hold up the windowing system to do so (due to running in user space, from what I understand), users feel it is not as good as Windows which typically attempts to go out of its way to return control to its users.
Parent
Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
XP is what to beat - not Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft had better develop a truly revolutionary OS and/or put more effort into supporting XP as people who are not already tired of Microsoft's crap will quickly become tired. After seeing Win7, I'm really starting to believe that XP will be the last decent OS from Redmond.
Parent
Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Vista has already lost in the marketplace.
Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it.
Parent
Hey now - Don't Speak For Me! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate Edition, and I'll speak for myself, thanks
It works fine. What can I say? I'm stuck with Windows or Mac because I've got a whole lot of pro audio hardware and software, and linux has always blown (and still blows, no matter what the ALSA folks tell you) in that arena. The great tools are just not there.
It's stable, runs well, and after I tweaked the settings a bit the latency on my Tascam FW-1082 is awesomely, consistently low. Can't remember the last time I had to fiddle with anything. I was dual-booting to XP for audio work until the last Vista x64 drivers for my gear came out, and I'll be removing the XP partition soon.
Much of the software I have is also available for the Mac. In the end I decided to go with Windows because of the Home Use Program from Microsoft.
I'll be the first to admit that Vista is an incredibly inefficient resource hog. Thankfully, hardware resources are getting pretty darned cheap. I wouldn't put Vista on older hardware.
I have exactly one complaint. After many patches the time it takes to shut down and restart the system is absurd.
Parent
Re:XP is what to beat - not Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it.
Yup - that's why they did The Mojave Experiment; to show people that they're happy. Because if you don't tell happy people that they are, in fact, happy they wouldn't know. And that means your happy people are unhappy. You don't want unhappy happy customers.
Parent
Yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
My father-in-law with a slide rule, graph paper and a mechanical pencil can outperform vista.
Re:Yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
With a regular pencil he still boots faster but gets a bit jittery rendering 3d graphics. With a Pentel P205 he's unbeatable.
Parent
It Doesn't Make a Difference in The Marketplace (Score:5, Insightful)
First and most importantly, I genuinely despise "speeds and feeds" metrics. It does nothing but harm the distro world when it's reduced to dumb metrics like this.
Second, money talks and specs walk. Right now, Microsoft is the failsafe meme for most PHB's. There are a million reasons for this. Over time this will change as Microsoft tightens the noose. Microsoft's customer is not the admin, but the buyer. The buyer is indifferent to almost all specs and usually overrules engineering with their "business case".
Boot time is not a benchmark (Score:4, Insightful)
In what workload would you include boot? Unless you keep booting up and down all day, boot time has nothing to do with performance.
Re:Boot time is not a benchmark (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you keep booting up and down all day, boot time has nothing to do with performance.
So unless you're running Windows, boot time has nothing to do with performance?
Parent
that's all good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Vista vs Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't RTFA, are they comparing the desktop rendering performance? Tell me when Linux support DRM...
No I cheated, I actually read it...
Merely 6 seconds and you declare that win?...The result could have changed if a different driver is involved. If an unpolished disk driver is in use which requires sleep for a few seconds during boot, the result would easily be flipped around.
Though I thought Vista takes much longer to boot...may be only when I have installed many startup program.
Noticeably faster when switching application?...how did they test that? On both machine it just takes a snap!
Hey at least give us more number and statistic. Like try some disk and network transfer, or may be automate the Firefox to do something.
I generally don't agree Linux is better in the area of hardware configuration. Like Display resolution - last time I tried doing dual screen was running some vendor (ATI) specified configuration tools to modify the xorg.conf, or WiFi WPA2 a year ago is still a very painful process, or Bluetooth Internet Gateway I still need to manually type a few command lines to get the interface and connection setup.
On the side notes, if the hardware works, it's perfect, no headache driver installation. If it does not work on the first boot, it then usually takes a day on average to make it work. I know that's the vendor to blame...but still the fact that Linux kernel and it's internal driver interface is evolving too fast might also be a problem. If DKMS was mature some more years earlier then I could have countless of hours saved...
Windows still have a more completed scenario and UX design. For example, say Printer configuration, it took me a few hours to share a USB HP Printers out on Ubuntu Hardy, surfing through the CUPS docs and alike, and if IIRC, the steps are totally different from what I learned in like 2 years ago. On Windows, it used to be the same steps for over 10 years. Right click -> Properties -> Share is all it takes, also making SMB shares just takes similar steps. On Linux? Will take another good hours to work with Samba...
Linux is doing great...but is still not a prime time. Lack of standard (like Desktop, Kernel Interface) is a double-edges sword. On one hand it will evolve faster, on the other hand no people can keep up with its speed.
It starts making a differnce when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Laptops (Score:5, Informative)
Wake up, 8.04 does all those out of the box just fine on my laptop.
Oh, well I guess as long as it works on your laptop, everyone should be happy. Me? I have to jump through hoops just to get to "passable", much less "working".
Parent
Re:Laptops (Score:5, Insightful)
If it doesn't work by default on your laptop, someone did some specific development work on Windows to make it work. The machine almost certainly doesn't conform to ACPI specs. When a computer does, Linux works quite well. Thinkpads are usually very good about it.
Really, the issue is that you have hardware that was designed for Windows. Just like you wouldn't expect Windows to work completely flawlessly on a Mac, why would you expect Linux to work completely flawlessly on a machine that was only ever designed to run Windows? Get a laptop that's designed to run according to open specs, and your problems will go away.
Parent
Re:Laptops (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure why power management functions are so hard to get right.
They touch every subsytem and driver and have to preserve the running state of hardware, applications, and have to be able to deal with situations like the network being disconnected.
Parent
Re:Laptops (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the distinction here is that YOU cannot get it to work on YOUR laptop. No problem with the OS. Problem exists between keyboard and chair!
Yes. That's why I said "Wake me when it'll work on my laptop".
The fact is that if Ubuntu in particular and Linux in general want to make headway against Microsoft, these kinds of problems cannot exist. Sleep/Hibernate has been a perennial problem in the various *nixes for years and it's always blamed on broken ACPI implementations, but the fact is that it works under Windows and that's what users care about. Yes, it's true that I can use ndiswrapper, but then why doesn't the OS offer to set that up for you during installation when it sees there's no driver for your wireless card?
It's nice to sit there on your little pedestal and look down your nose at people who can't get it to work, but it doesn't do anything to help and ends up making you look like a douchebag. But since you posted A.C., I expect you know that already.
Parent
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hate to say it, but (Score:5, Funny)
But absolutely no useful software runs on it...
Sure there is. It just doesn't come bundled with the system like it does on Linux. You have to hunt around the Intarwebs to find useful software for XP. Or if you go to brick-and-mortar shops (did you know there were brick-and-mortar shops that carry software?) you'll find that almost all of what they carry is for Windows (emphasizing how limited and useless the base system is). Most of the useful software available for Windows isn't as good as the software that comes with Linux, but it's out there, and a few (very few) of the apps are absolutely top-notch.
Parent