![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
No, you were right the first time. Oranges are better than apples.
I have to admit, that's a clever idea with your sister's.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H];1035673877 said:
Zarathustra[H];1035673907 said:
Zarathustra[H];1035674012 said:
Zarathustra[H];1035673922 said:
Zarathustra[H];1035674124 said:I took another look at this based off of the original versions of my Video (the one on youtube was cut off in the windows shotdown which took a LONG time and I didn't think it was going to be interesting.
My methodology was as follows: I did not count any time I spent typing passwords, selecting what OS to boot, or moving th emouse to click on anything. This may actually have helped windows a little bit, as in Linux when the screen pops up, it's done loading, in Windows when the screen pops up, its still doing stuff in the background and not entirely responsive (evidenced by the fact I had to click to shut down Windows twice before it registered)
here are the times:
Ubuntu 10.04 (AMD64)
OS Selection (grub) to logon screen: 19s
Logon click to loading complete: 4s
Shutdown click to actual shutdown: 5s
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
OS Selection (grub) to logon screen 34s
Logon click to loading complete: 7s
Shutdown click to actual shutdown: 46s
Both of these are reasonably fresh installs, and running on the exact same computer right after eachother with all the same settings and same ambient temperatures, etc.
Ubuntu does everything in the list significantly faster from a percentage standpoint, but from a practical standpoint there is not a huge difference in anything except the shutdown time.
I don't know why windows took so long to shut down. It was not installing any updates or anything... I guess it just goes to demonstrate the unpredicatibility of Windows. For a more fair comparison to account for variability, these tests probably ought to be re-run a few times so we can look at the means and standard deviations. I'll let somoene else do that though. I have shit to do
Zarathustra[H];1035674217 said:
Zarathustra[H];1035674217 said:
Not so much, I've found. The degree of responsiveness (or rather the lack thereof) doesn't seem to be impacted by any of my startup applications. Disabling all of them MSE, Cobian Backup 10, AnyDVD HD and Virtual CloneDrive seems to make no apparent difference.
Zarathustra[H];1035674217 said:
Obviously. The update process on Ubuntu is easy to use, seamless and requires you only to accept the updates or choose the ones you want and enter your root password. It's quite similar to the OSX updater.
I don't think I've ever seen a computer that only had software from Microsoft installed, let alone an OEM machine owned by someone less than computer savvy. Point is that on modern desktop Linux distros this is handled much better than on Windows. All updates for the OS, user software and 'drivers' are in one central location. There is nothing similar on Windows, and its one of the biggest failings of that OS IMO. At the very least I think Windows badly needs a centralized update notification/installation system. Not that any of the vendors would use it, since they all seem to love reinventing the wheel so much.
Sounds to me like you either haven't used Linux in 10 years (or longer...) or have no idea what you're doing. Any reasonable distro you'd use for a production server has a package manager, and any competent admin will use it. If you were doing something obscure, that's one thing, but normal people use the package manager, and even moreso the layperson we're talking about here using a default install of a desktop-friendly distro.