Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista 689
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.)
Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It depends" is a good answer for this kind of situation.
What operating systems do, primarily, is manage hardware resources. So things don't get interesting until you don't have enough resources. In most situations, there should be no perceptible difference between operating systems, it's when you begin to push your luck that you start to see differences. And then it depends on exactly how you are pushing your luck: too big a working set, allocating huge chunks of virtual memory, intensive disk I/O,
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:4, Informative)
+1 Informative for nLite mention. You can slim vanilla Windows XP down to around 200 MB or so with it by removing unused and non-essential services, features, and bloat. Even 150 MB or so if you want to be truly compact with it. It's maybe 50 to 100 MB more if you include service packs and .NET versions. This equates to faster boot times, better responsiveness, and less memory usage.
It's great to run off USB flash drives also.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yeah. I remember running Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my P3 667, 384MB RAM. The windows version was faster running under Wine than in windows! :)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps because Ubuntu 8.10 was just recently released?
And it makes a great attention grabbing headline. Not the type of headline for you or me, but for Joe Desktop. I hope that a lot of frustrated Vista users hear about this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps because Ubuntu 8.10 was just recently released?
The real question should be... does Ubuntu 8.10 outperform the preceding release of Ubuntu?
I.E. Is it worthwhile to upgrade?
The very first thing a new release of a Linux distro should be compared against are other versions of the Linux distro, and of course other Linux distros.
As this is more of an apples-apples comparison that indicates whether you should use Ubuntu 8.10, or whether you should use a different version or distro, instead.
We al
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ubuntu after a year and a half of use beats an OEM version of XP out-of-the-box. This is based on personal experience with my Pentium D machine (yeah, hard-de-har-har) which has been dist-upgraded since Kubuntu 7.04 and is now running KDE4 (which is slower than the stock Ubuntu Gnome install).
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!
I thought the proper metric was suckage.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As in Windows 7 will suck less than Vista...
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.
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.
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.
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, I'm careful to make sure any wireless card I get with Linus comes with an Atheros chip.
Yeah sure, but what about the rest of us that can't afford to hire a personal kernel hacker with every wireless card?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is your Ubuntu experience with 8.10? Asking because kernel 2.6.27 supports many more wifi chips and IIRC Atheros support has improved a lot. Also, network manager is much better now. It's cheap to try with a Desktop (live) CD
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a polar opposite.
Ubuntu (according the article - I use Slackware so I don't know) runs fast even with necessary end-user software installed.
Windows slows down once the necessary end-user software is installed.
That's the point the GP was trying to make. (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I see what he's saying.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I'm not sure about that claim of hitting the disk less. At home I dual boot my P4 3.4 GHz (with HT) machine between XP/Ubuntu 8.04 (actually 8.10 as of this morning, but I haven't really used 8.10 yet on it). Granted, I only have 512 MB of RAM, but the old 20 GB IDE hard drive in there is always clicking and grinding away whenever I do anything. XP on that system is using a newer, larger SATA drive, so I can't really compare that directly, but previously I used the same 20GB hdd in a P3/600MHz machine ru
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...
Re:Faster than Vista! (Score:5, Insightful)
It works the other way around (Score:3, Insightful)
The manufacturer makes sure their mainboard works with Windows and does not give details to anyone. If OTOH Mircosoft would want data from the manufacturer they would be happy to supply it. But Microsoft doesn't give a rat's behind. Because customers will not complain to Microsoft if it doesn't work. They will just buy another mainboard. Monopoly is sweet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I never said it is a hardware problem. The hardware probably works fine. But the hardware manufacturer has not told anyone apart from a select few *how* exactly one has tointeract with the hardware in order for it to do its wonders. That's quite a different thing.
You are pretending Linux developers to get a crystal ball which will tell them what particular incantations they need to do in order for the hardware to do what's needed... and you do not see how absurd is your demand!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FWIW, my Core 2 Duo system, according to my UPS, idles @ 80W. .10 dollars a KW/h = $46.75
80W * 16 hours a day when I could suspend to RAM * 365.25 days / 1000 *
If you have you system powered off ten hours a day on average you'd cut that number in half.
I have no idea what the MS tax costs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Suspend to RAM works out-of-the-box on my Dell Inspiron 9400, in Ubuntu Hardy Heron (8.04). I've found that the long-term-support releases are far more likely to support suspend and other commonly difficult features to get working.
For the first time ever, I'm strongly considering sticking with my old version of Ubuntu (8.04) until the next long-term support version. Are there any great features in 8.10 that would cause you to recommending the upgrade? Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When the Athlon X2 came out, it offered the best performance/watt...
Intel's highend offering was the P4, and it used a lot more power than the X2 while performing slower.
As for the broken suspend, this will be down to the motherboard maker not bothering to support the published ACPI standards... On a system which has attempted to follow standards and/or provide linux compatibility this isn't a problem, for instance my eee suspends properly, as does my macbook pro running either linux or osx, and my previous
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you care to make a bet on that Windows 7? Microsoft remains driven by feature addition, not speed. We can expect their integration of .NET, Palladium's DRM features (mislabeled Trusted Computing), and new gaming features (to finally prevent the use of new games or software on XP).
Windows 7 will be bent on killing off XP. That may force it to avoid the 'features' that have made Vista a dog, but there's no chance of going to the simpler tools and final integration fo the NT kernel to a consumer OS that
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did it do in categories like connecting with Exchange?
Divisive issue - Microsoft does not design things with compatibility in mind.
Processing large spreadsheets with VBA macros?
Visual basic = not so great Microsoft code. Why the hell are people sending around large spreadsheets with shitty code?
Running company-critical active-X components?
WTF? Stop trolling. Active-X applications are the bane of open source, Security-hole-ridden and poorly-designed, as a general rule. Besides this, as above, Microsoft does not like interoperability.
Running Photoshop, indesign or illustrator?
WINE or use oss alternatives.
Being updated by group policies.
What kind of server? If you are about to say that the operating system comes from Micros
YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2009 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop!
The Year of Linux on the Desktop is always 2 years away.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So next year is the year of the Linux Cellphone?
Is there a newsletter I could subscribe to that would explain all this to me?
Re:YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't that last year? Let's just say instead it's the decade of Linux on The Desktop.
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.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We are talking about Ubuntu.
No need for command line , scripts or anything else.
Just install , and if you need something , click on add/remove programs.
It's easier than Windows , where you have to look on different websites to get what you need.
In fact that is the accomplishment , that a very user friendly , though somewhat bulky distro like Ubuntu is outperforming Vista.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and before you complain more, if you double click on a .deb package on your desktop, it asks for your password and brings up a handy dialog with a big button saying "Install". How much simpler do you need it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not even close!
Being faster means little if the average person can not install an application and have it work! That is WITHOUT going to the command line, editing some script, coping some file, or hunting for some needed RPM.
Especially when trying to install much needed RPM in a Debian based distro, talk about dependency hell !!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you are trying to install a Debian .deb in Windows, talk about dependency hell!
Seriously, dependency hell is something only people that have used linux last time ten years ago can seriously bring up... Let it go.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What I absolutely love about Ubuntu (and maybe this is inherited from Debian, I wouldn't know) is that if a package was automatically installed because another package needed it to satisfy a dependency, and then you un-install the package (the one that needed the other) then BOTH packages get uninstalled automatically.
How is that for solving dependency hell ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So something like "open Synaptic and check a box and you are done?" When did Windows start doing that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening the package manager, ticking what you want installed and hitting apply is quite easy...
Opening a browser, searching google, finding a program that seems like it might do what you want, finding the download link, agreeing to the download policy, downloading it, running the installer, clicking next a few times without reading any of the screens is actually a lot harder.
And just because you are given the option of using the command line, doesn't mean you have to... Linux geeks use it because its much q
Hate to say it, but (Score:2, Insightful)
When Ubuntu outperforms XP, then I'll complete my transition to an all-Linux house.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Will those games run on my personal computer, because last I checked we weren't discussing embedded devices.
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.
Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
7 is to Vista as XP was to 2000.
So, same thing but slower, with higher system requirements, and a much uglier interface? and you're saying that people will embrace it, instead of Vista?
People skipped 2000 for the same reasons they say they're skipping Vista.
Not really. People skipped Windows 2000 because it was advertised as a business OS, like WinNT, instead of a "home-friendly" one like 98 and XP. People skipped *ME* for the same reasons they're skipping Vista, and ME was the end of that line of OSes, if you don't remember.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have thought all the previous versions (Score:2)
of Ubuntu could outperform Vista in speed?
LOL! (Score:2, Funny)
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)
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.
Dubious Distinction (Score:3, Funny)
A dubious distinction, to be sure. Hell, my Heathkit H89 running CP/M outperforms Vista, at least when it comes to boot time. It outperforms Ubuntu in that regard also, come to think of it.
Laptops (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me when it'll work on my laptop.
-Sleep/hibernation
-Wireless
-Softkeys
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
Benchmarks dont really matter to most (Score:3, Interesting)
Outside of techies and geeks, people just want to know if it runs whatever program they are used too. They dont care about #'s really. Maybe the benchmarks for video cards matter to some people for video games that wouldnt typically know what a benchmark is, but most people dont even know what linux is really (less ubuntu).
Really, this news is that windows scored a 2838, ubuntu a 3367.
Vista boot time: 56 seconds.
Ubuntu boot time: 50 seconds.
While I give a big high five to the developers, I dont think this is a watershed moment.
it would be valuable to now claim "faster than windows" in marketting along with other features. Just that simple phrase will have more penetration.
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?
Games (Score:3, Interesting)
that's all good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Compatibility is more important... (Score:3, Insightful)
A nitro-fueled dragster outperforms my Toyota, so perhaps I should trade my Camry in?
Performance is just one variable in the equation, and probably not the most important in these days of 3GHz quad core boxes. Compatibility is probably more important. Windows runs the applications most people want and need, while Linux falls short in this area. It may be improving, but it's not there yet. Until there are native versions of Office, Photoshop, and other popular Windows applications, Linux is going nowhere on the desktop except in cases with extreme price pressure to keep the overall system cost as low as possible.
The point it makes a difference. (Score:3, Interesting)
> At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place
Simple. At the point there are apps available for Ubuntu that people want to use.
As long as it works "well enough" and isn't too obnoxious (hello Vista) then, apart from hackers/researchers/coders, nobody really cares about their operating system. People only care about the apps they use. In fact a large proportion only care that "I click on that little icon and get on with my stuff".
e.g. Personally I'll make a full time switch to Ubuntu when there is an integrated music program (audio/MIDI sequencer) that either performs as well as, or hopefuly outperforms, my aging copy of Logic Audio (i.e. must have full VST integration or plugins of the quality of NI Massive, NI Battery etc. etc.) Until then I'll be running XP as my main OS.
For other people it's probably stuff like Photoshop, some CAD program, Outlook etc.
Ubuntu's great. I run several Ubuntu desktops and an Ubuntu server but to gain market share it needs some "must have" app(s) that people want to use.
Once that happens then the side bonus is people will start getting used to Linux as they go about their daily comuting.
After the first 10 minutes of spinning cubes, fading menus, whizzy animations etc. etc. who really cares what their OS is doing ? Get out of the way and let me get on with work/play that's what I say.
It's all about the apps.
Not just apps... (Score:3, Insightful)
File format and other predatory lock in techniques are far more powerful than straight out application competition.
What's lacking is consumer exposure (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?
It will only make a difference when an option for pre-installed Linux system is provided by most major OEMs along side other non-Linux systems with these benchmarks highlighted.
In my opinion, 2007-2008 was/is the year(s) of the Linux desktop as far as the technology is concerned. What is lacking now is consumer exposure/education, specifically at the retail level (think Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo, etc.). In the consumer's mind, the operating system is not separate from the hardware they are purchasing. Thus, unless OEMs and computer makers offer Linux on the same level as Windows or other OSes, all these benchmarks, usability results, user freedom, and other positives will only fall upon the ears of the technically brave or elite.
Of course there will always be the new user learning curve when switching to Linux. But, in my opinion, this learning curve in 2007-2008 became no worse than a Windows->Mac switch is today. I don't see a major *technical* problem preventing the *AVERAGE* user (read: email, web, word/presentation documents) switching to a modern binary package-based Linux distributions (read: point and click package and application installation). What is lacking is the exposure to the end user at the point of sale.
Perhaps what will hasten the year of the consumer Linux desktop is when/if cloud-based applications go mainstream and replace their client-side equivalents, in which case the OS running on the PC becomes nearly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does it matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Go figure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the good thing about the benchmark is its non biased evidence. Who knows if it will serve to convince someone to use Ubuntu/Linux or not but at least, those who needs to, will have something to use. Provided of course the source is credible to all...or until Vista obtains a countering non biased benchmark.
No I didn't read TFA but unless the difference on a modern PC causes delays of more than 10 seconds, most people using it for business productivity or for home use wont care.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)