Slashdot Log In
Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:22 PM
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
Firehose:Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: Ubuntu vs. Windows In OpenOffice.org Benchmark 260 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This discussion has been archived.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, 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, 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: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
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)
Actually, the year of the Linux desktop was last year.
This is the year of the Linux netboot.
Get with the program.
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
XP is what to beat - not Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
My father-in-law with a slide rule, graph paper and a mechanical pencil can outperform vista.
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".
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.
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: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