Linux Faster?

[kac77]

I mentioned Win7 because that's what I have installed at the moment. Before this I was running Vista64 and Handbrake encoded at the exact same rate with the exact same version of Handbrake using the exact same settings. The time to encode is based primarily on raw CPU speed.

Yes you are correct. But the foundation for which this stuff is built on plays a role. I doubt very seriously that two different operating systems which use different kernels will perform the exact same task at the exact same time. I've never seen any tests or reviews that show that to be true. They might be close, but exactly the same. I doubt it. Even tests run on the same hardware will differ from run to run.

You are mistaken because a codec is not required for encoding when the encoder has everything built in for encoding. The x264 encoder included with Handbrake will not playback x264 encoded files or h264 encoded files. You do not need an installed and loaded codec to encode and that is all that matters.

That "everything built in" is the codec. How do you think it does it? Magic? Of course an encoder can't do playback. It's an encoder. Hello. I'm trying to be respectful but you just aren't making any sense whatsoever. You don't have to believe me. Here's the definition for codec:

A codec is a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal.

You are disagreeing with me for no apparent reason even when it makes no sense to do so. I encode in x264 and without the baseline codec in linux it's just not possible unless the library exists in another package.

You said nothing about downloading or installing anything while at the command line. You only said that you couldn't encode at a command line with Windows and that is false. Quit trying to change your argument because it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Quote me please. You won't find a single thread where I said "you can't encode via commandline". I said in order to test your theory that the OS plays no role whatsoever we would have to get rid of the overhead, the GUI, and since we can't do that then memory plays a role. See further down where you agree with me....

Either OS is going to free up whatever RAM is needed to make room for the encoding and will not be trying to smash other things in RAM so the caching is not going to be a factor.

This is exactly my point. I was using 1GB as the example because the effect of caching is magnified.

 

[synaptical]

That 13 second boot didn't just happen by itself - it required a concerted effort to MAKE Linux boot that fast, just as using BootVis on a laptop I have using XP 32 bit and a 5400 rpm hard drive with DDR 333 RAM can boot in 13.68 seconds after I hit it with a boot optimization pass.

Would we then argue the .68 second discrepancy, because I'd expect Linux to be far more accurate than just saying "13 seconds" and not carry it out to the 5th decimal place or something.

Oh yeah... What's your point?

Out of the box, a Win XP install will boot faster than a given Linux distro, such as Ubuntu - and I use Ubuntu as the example here because it's the most popular Linux distro on the planet, so it's comparable in general. After the install you can tweak the living hell out of both to optimize the boot speed, obviously.

my boot is 25 seconds, and that is totally stock, untweaked, with a bunch of daemons, virtualbox modules, network file services, and a 5+ second delay for DHCP (and only a 3200+ processor). I can provide the bootchart anytime you want, I just don't have it uploaded. Slimming that down would take about 2 minutes and easily slice 7-10 seconds off the time. I don't really care about boot time since I hardly ever reboot so I have never bothered.

So I have to dispute your statements. Most windows don't boot in 25 seconds to begin with, and none of them that I am aware of boot in 15-20 seconds, at least not without these third party add-ons you mention. There are variations in distributions and depending on what services you run, but on the whole Linux is definitely faster in this category, no question.

 

[Joe Average]

A stock XP 32 bit install on that same laptop is 26.02 seconds, as measured with BootVis. After the optimization pass it'll drop to 13.68 seconds, and then I go install AV, hit Windows Update, do tweaks, etc.

My best boot time ever with XP 32 bit as measured with BootVis is 12.05 seconds, on a Pentium 3 1.13 laptop with DDR 333 and a 7200 rpm 8MB Hitachi drive, after installation and one single optimization pass and nothing else.

I just restored a ThinkPad R40e the other day for a client. When he dropped it off - after a failed attempt on his own at restoring it to factory condition after months of it being dog slow and crashing too often - it took about 12.5 minutes to get to the Desktop. Has a Celeron 2.2 Mobile, 768MB of DDR2 400 RAM, a 40GB 5400 rpm 8MB drive in it. Was very mucked up, so I decided to just do it right (which is my standard method anyway). Out goes the IBM restore partition, out goes the IBM bloatware, etc etc all of it, gone.

When I was done, he came to pick it up, and I handed it to him and told him to turn it on. He did, started talking, and moments later almost pissed himself where he stood - it booted to the Desktop in 14.25 seconds, with all the necessary IBM device drivers for the buttons installed, Avira free antivirus loaded and running (no stupid splash screen, I might add), connected to my Wi-Fi router with WPA2 encryption, ready to roll.

Needless to say he's one happy camper with his "new" ThinkPad.

It's entirely possible to get sub-15 second boot times with Windows XP in less than an hour of tweaking a few services, removing a few unnecessary startup programs, and a BootVis optimization pass or two.

But let's be honest: who the fuck cares about how fast a PC can boot - what hardcore power user ever turns their machine off in the first place?

 

[Gott]

What do you spent more time doing - Rebooting your computer or actually using it?

Boot time is pretty irrelevant unless it takes an unearthly amount of time to start up.

 

[Joe Average]

It doesn't matter to me anymore, but it does matter to customers that drop off their machines and are quite surprised at how their old decrepit machines suddenly seem like brand new ultra-smooth ricers compared to what they were when they last turned 'em on.

And that translates into "Hey, if you're having trouble with your PC, I know this guy... he did some kind of magic to mine and it's lightning fast now... lemme find his number..." which then translates into a more positive effect on my bank account.

So, I guess in some way it does matter... whaddya know. Go figure...

 

[synaptical]

yes, I have to agree with Joe on this one. I hardly ever reboot my computers (even laptop just goes into sleep mode), but most people are pleasantly surprised by a fast boot time and perceive it as meaning a fast computer.

But imo this is getting into "beating a dead horse" terrority. My conclusions are that 1) well-configured linux and windows systems will probably run the same tasks at about the same rate, with linux probably getting an edge, 2) boot times are generally faster on linux, but can be tweaked faster on windows if you know what you're doing and want to spend the time and effort, and 3) the windows gui is subjectively perceived as faster/more responsive, but any perceived advantage there is generally negated by the poor interface design itself (e.g., the time it takes to navigate and hunt through the nested Start menu, etc.)

:wave:

 

[Joe Average]

I started reading that post and thought, "Ok, he's breaking even, we're done... we both know we agree on most of the points brought up so far..." but then it turned into "oh, no... wait... he's bringing usability of the interface into it... and I had some respect brewing for this guy..."

Honestly, I just don't care to continue this, because bringing usability into it then becomes a nightmare in itself.

YMMV, which is the best way to put any OS comparison and discussion to rest. It's basically like saying "What the fuck..." because, if you can't say it, you'll never understand it.

 

[synaptical]

I started reading that post and thought, "Ok, he's breaking even, we're done... we both know we agree on most of the points brought up so far..." but then it turned into "oh, no... wait... he's bringing usability of the interface into it... and I had some respect brewing for this guy..."

Honestly, I just don't care to continue this, because bringing usability into it then becomes a nightmare in itself.

YMMV, which is the best way to put any OS comparison and discussion to rest. It's basically like saying "What the fuck..." because, if you can't say it, you'll never understand it.

Why does mentioning usability make it a "nightmare?" Isn't that what the thread is about? Real world experience? Are you going to argue next that using the command line is just as fast or easy for most people as using a GUI? No, because the interface does matter, doesn't it? So why do you stop only halfway when discussing the windoze vs. linux guis?

It's factual that nested menus are considered poor design because of the negative effect on task. Same for icons. So if someone is going to complain about the "slowness" of a GUI, saying that they are talking about REAL WORLD use, shouldn't all aspects of real world use come into it?

I can see why it's confusing, though, because the OP seems to want to have it both ways. First he complains about how the GUI "lags" in X-windows, and then he says he's not talking about raw computing power:

"Who are you responding to? I don't believe anyone said windows number crunches faster and the GUI is what I'm speaking of... did you read my original post? I said it lags in X-Windows."

So he wants to talk about "lags" in X-windows, but he doesn't want to talk about any of the other aspects of using the GUI. The linux bashers only want to focus on the aspects of the GUI that make windows appear to be "better." You don't want to focus on anything else that is equally a part of the user interface experience, like hunting through a nested menu for 10 seconds searching for some app, only to have the menu snap shut because your mouse went off target, causing you to have to start all over again and waste even more time. Meanwhile, the linux user has already completed the task and shut the app. Yeah, windows is "faster" in the real world -- as long as we ignore the "real" part.

 

[requiemnoise]

I find it so funny, when Windows guys talk about Bootvis and haven't a got clue what it supposed to do. This thread has become totally pointless. Maybe, Windows lovers need to read about how Windows drivers are loaded.

 

[XOR != OR]

Why does mentioning usability make it a "nightmare?"

'Cause he's pro-windows. Thank you, thank you, don't forget to tip your waiter!

( had to be said )

 

[requiemnoise]

Windows vs Linux discussions are always the same. Linux people always have something interesting to say about how their OS functions, because they are forced to learn if they want to optimize their OS. The openess nature of Linux forces them to learn the advance features. Windows guys always say, we can stop services. It will make it load faster! Linux people respond, “we can optimize the kernel to boot in 10sec to a basic window manager.” Of course, Windows guy says, “the boot time is irrelevant. That is nothing to do with the speed. Oh, our windows manager is always SNAPPIE. Look at Vista. It snaps in 3D!” If Linux guys respond back, we can do the same. We even have options to load different libraries for different types of window mangers and even integrate 3d acceleration that is totally offloaded to the GPU.” Windows guys respond back, “I DON’T LIKE IT. Linux sucks! It is slow. I can’t prove it. I have so many years of experience.” Linux guy responds back, “I thought the topic of the discussion is speed. Maybe, you don’t like the UI. That is fine. However, you have to admit that there is a big speed difference between these two OSes.” Windows guy says, “Windows win. We can’t hear you. We can’t hear you. I haven been running Linux on a VM before you were born!” Linux guy says, “I think I was born before the concept of VM was developed. Actually, I was around way before Linux came in play.” Windows guy says, “no, you didn’t. When I was your age…”

 

[heatlesssun]

requiemnoise,

You forgot the part where the Linux guy says "I couldn't get this application to run or this driver to install, so I opened a terminal, sudo...................................". Windows guys says "Double clicked the installer and it worked perfrectly."

 

[requiemnoise]

requiemnoise,

You forgot the part where the Linux guy says "I couldn't get this application to run or this driver to install, so I opened a terminal, sudo...................................". Windows guys says "Double clicked the installer and it worked perfrectly."

of course.... you are right...
I didn't know, Windows didn't came with a keyboard. I guess that explains many problems.
All that sacrifice, because typing is soooo hard.

Also, the topic of this thread was about the speed. Unless, you want to join in an excuse of "when i was your age, we were running LInux in a VM." Of course, I would say, "I must be really smart for a ten year old." I wonder how I know so much about Microsoft in the late 80s. Damn, I must be dreaming all those things... Yes... I must be dreaming all of these things now.

 

[Jon55]

Windows vs Linux discussions are always the same. Linux people always have something interesting to say about how their OS functions, because they are forced to learn if they want to optimize their OS. The openess nature of Linux forces them to learn the advance features. Windows guys always say, we can stop services. It will make it load faster! Linux people respond, “we can optimize the kernel to boot in 10sec to a basic window manager.” Of course, Windows guy says, “the boot time is irrelevant. That is nothing to do with the speed. Oh, our windows manager is always SNAPPIE. Look at Vista. It snaps in 3D!” If Linux guys respond back, we can do the same. We even have options to load different libraries for different types of window mangers and even integrate 3d acceleration that is totally offloaded to the GPU.” Windows guys respond back, “I DON’T LIKE IT. Linux sucks! It is slow. I can’t prove it. I have so many years of experience.” Linux guy responds back, “I thought the topic of the discussion is speed. Maybe, you don’t like the UI. That is fine. However, you have to admit that there is a big speed difference between these two OSes.” Windows guy says, “Windows win. We can’t hear you. We can’t hear you. I haven been running Linux on a VM before you were born!” Linux guy says, “I think I was born before the concept of VM was developed. Actually, I was around way before Linux came in play.” Windows guy says, “no, you didn’t. When I was your age…”

Of course, Windows users are the bad guys. And Linux users are humble people who selflessly give to society.

The difference is it won't take me 15 minutes to compile my wireless card driver to respond to a comment.

 

[ADDICT76]

Linux is a lot FASTER. It isn't even a debate. Windows "usually" get slower with each release. Linux gets faster.

You just proved nothing you have to say is of relevance. Thanks.

 

[requiemnoise]

You just proved nothing you have to say is of relevance. Thanks.

Why? 2.6.x kernel got faster over the years. You know. A fun debate is when people have something offer and give others to think. Before we start, do you know anything about Windows vs Linux kernel?

 

[ADDICT76]

You didn't make a debatable comment. Your comment was pure fanboy garbage. Windows 7 is faster than any previous version of Windows before it, even in less than optimal beta form. Vista with proper hardware was faster.superior to Xp and XP was worlds ahead of ME or 98SE.

I'll admit I am not a linux guru, I have tried many distros and have yet to find one that works as well and "feels" as peppy and responsive as Windows. No user should have to recompile their OS's kernal to get it to feel as responsive as the other modern operating systems.

 

[requiemnoise]

You didn't make a debatable comment. Your comment was pure fanboy garbage. Windows 7 is faster than any previous version of Windows before it, even in less than optimal beta form. Vista with proper hardware was faster.superior to Xp and XP was worlds ahead of ME or 98SE.

I'll admit I am not a linux guru, I have tried many distros and have yet to find one that works as well and "feels" as peppy and responsive as Windows. No user should have to recompile their OS's kernal to get it to feel as responsive as the other modern operating systems.

I'm sorry. I am starting to get a bit bored of debating with end users about the OS technology right now. Maybe, the answer was a bit too quick. Answer to your question, I don't think you know how to choose a distro. The second response is even most bloated FREE Linux distro such as OpenSuse is faster than Windows 7. 512megs is plenty for Opensuse. 5 gigs is a plenty of space to work with.

Vista with proper hardware was faster.superior to Xp and XP was worlds ahead of ME or 98SE.

Do you actually believe XP loads faster than Win98? Do you understand how HAL functions in both platforms before we jump on to a discussion. Because, if the discussion will end up as "I'm angry. I don't hear you. Linux sucks ball." I'm just wasting my valuable time.

 

[requiemnoise]

If some people admit, they are having few difficulties using Linux, I think most people will understand. What frustrates some Linux users are total non-sense based on a visual feel. If a girl has 32" waist, but wearing a corset to make her look like 26, is she really 26? You can judge a speed based on the eyes. When we have debate like this, we don't want to hear these things.

1. Things are faster in Windows, but it has faster GUI responses.
a. tweaking the GPU, turning on the 3d acceleration, different window managers a person choose reacts to various GUI responses. Some times, having more visualization on the faster GPU will appear to be running things faster, because your eyes are getting more frames per second.

2. I have the latest hardware, Windows is FASTER.
a. if your copper pipes are 1/4" instead of 1/8," of course the water will be coming down faster for one person. If two people are showering in different bathrooms, having conservative shower heads make a huge difference in both people's water flow.

3. Stick with numbers when judging these things.

Thanks

 

[Ramp8g]

I think what people forget to think about is driver optimization. It would seem to me there is no way an open source driver would ever compete with a proprietary one. Take Nforce chipsets for example. Your gonna tell me Linux is better at bringing out the full potential of the motherboard over Nvidia's own driver set? Umm na, not in this life time. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu. Until recently, I've been using it on my desktop and still use it on my laptop. I changed back to Vista for reasons other then the topic of this thread. But I can definatly tell an improvement in performance when going back to Windows. I think both have there strengths and weakness's so I'm not here to proclaim one better then the other. I just wanted to point out the hardware driver issue as deffinatly making a diffrence in performance.

 

[requiemnoise]

I think what people forget to think about is driver optimization. It would seem to me there is no way an open source driver would ever compete with a proprietary one. Take Nforce chipsets for example. Your gonna tell me Linux is better at bringing out the full potential of the motherboard over Nvidia's own driver set? Umm na, not in this life time. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu. Until recently, I've been using it on my desktop and still use it on my laptop. I changed back to Vista for reasons other then the topic of this thread. But I can definatly tell an improvement in performance when going back to Windows. I think both have there strengths and weakness's so I'm not here to proclaim one better then the other. I just wanted to point out the hardware driver issue as deffinatly making a diffrence in performance.

I just want to correct few things here.
Ubuntu isn't Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distro.
Ubuntu doesn't make open source drivers for Nvidia.
Nouveau makes 3d open source driver for Nvidia.
Generally, open source drivers are more optimized than a closed source.
However, at this moment Nvidia driver kicks Nouveau and other open source drivers for Nvidia.

Recommendation: install Nvidia drivers on Linux and turn on 3d. Window manager will run faster.

Like I mentioned before, Linux isn't for everyone. But, please don't make wrong assumptions, because people don't GET it. In order to get it, there are many things to learn about Linux.

 

[kac77]

I think what people forget to think about is driver optimization. It would seem to me there is no way an open source driver would ever compete with a proprietary one. Take Nforce chipsets for example. Your gonna tell me Linux is better at bringing out the full potential of the motherboard over Nvidia's own driver set? Umm na, not in this life time. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu. Until recently, I've been using it on my desktop and still use it on my laptop. I changed back to Vista for reasons other then the topic of this thread. But I can definitely tell an improvement in performance when going back to Windows. I think both have there strengths and weakness's so I'm not here to proclaim one better then the other. I just wanted to point out the hardware driver issue as deffinatly making a diffrence in performance.

Huh? First there are many open source drivers that are more fully featured than their closed source counterpart.. A good example would be Creative, where it was the open source driver which gave dolby 5.1 etc to Vista machines with X-FI cards when Creative refused to support it. As for Nvidia, MS's generic drivers do a far better job at controlling the chipset than Nvidia's own drivers do. It all depends on what the hardware is, and the manufacturer making the hardware which determines the success of closed / open drivers.

 

[Joe Average]

'Cause he's pro-windows. Thank you, thank you, don't forget to tip your waiter!

( had to be said )

I'm pro-whatever-the-fuck-works-best-for-me since we all know "best" is personally subjective stuff...

( had to be said )

 

[requiemnoise]

I'm pro-whatever-the-fuck-works-best-for-me since we all know "best" is personally subjective stuff...

( had to be said )

Well.. Now, you put it that way...
Yes, it is all up to you. But, stating "Linux sucks because I don't like it," is very naive. If people have said, "I don't like Linux, because the interface doesn't behave like Windows does," many people would have left the thread alone. They have different interfaces. It is like this. Linux is like an efficient hybrid car. Windows is like SUV. Even the energy prices is really high and we have to deal with a climate change, some people will always prefer SUV.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well.. Now, you put it that way...
Yes, it is all up to you. But, stating "Linux sucks because I don't like it," is very naive. If people have said, "I don't like Linux, because the interface doesn't behave like Windows does," many people would have left the thread alone. They have different interfaces. It is like this. Linux is like an efficient hybrid car. Windows is like SUV. Even the energy prices is really high and we have to deal with a climate change, some people will always prefer SUV.

All of this is true and yet I do think that as I stated earlier to say "Linux is faster than Windows" with out context is also naive.

Linux is a wonderful thing. I think that it doesn't work so well on the desktop because while performance is important in that environment as with any, straight forward functionality is equally if not more important. I'm far more interested in doing this ON my computers than worrying about the OS, or tweaking this or fiddling with that like ther average person.

I think Linux people sometimes forget that any stength can be a weakness as well. We hear a lot about the "infinite configurability" of Linux and when you need it that's awesome. Do you really think that a mass consumer like Windows needs to be so configurable that it's impossible to support?

As far as efficiency for desktop apps I don't buy it. Things like OpenOffice and GIMP at least out of the box don't seem to run any better on the same hardware than even Vista when I've tested them. No sure, I'm sure there's someone who can fix that at least until the next version and then maybe we're looking for a new optimization.

So yes, Windows isn't Linux and Linux isn't Windows. Both have strengths and weaknesses and serve different user needs and environments and will coexist for our lifetimes without doubt.

 

[Gorankar]

Well.. Now, you put it that way...
Yes, it is all up to you. But, stating "Linux sucks because I don't like it," is very naive. If people have said, "I don't like Linux, because the interface doesn't behave like Windows does," many people would have left the thread alone. They have different interfaces. It is like this. Linux is like an efficient hybrid car. Windows is like SUV. Even the energy prices is really high and we have to deal with a climate change, some people will always prefer SUV.

If you are going to use car analogies, pick one that fits. Nix is a kit car, it can be whatever you want it to be, if you are willing to put the time and work into it to build it out like you want it. Windows is a regular car that just works, one that comes in a limited number different versions from your basic sedan(home basic) up to the a luxury SUV(ultimate).

Some people like the freedom and possibilities of kit cars, and some just want to turn the key and go somewhere. "Efficient hybrid" indeed............

 

[requiemnoise]

All of this is true and yet I do think that as I stated earlier to say "Linux is faster than Windows" with out context is also naive.

The topic was which OS is faster. Linux is faster. I don't know how to explain this to people. If the topic was which interfaces users will prefer, I would have stay out of this topic. Because, that is up to a person. It isn't based on numbers. It is based on a taste.

I think Linux people sometimes forget that any stength can be a weakness as well. We hear a lot about the "infinite configurability" of Linux and when you need it that's awesome. Do you really think that a mass consumer like Windows needs to be so configurable that it's impossible to support?

Every products have a slogan.
Linux is freedom. Windows is for the masses. Linux supposed to have various configurations. It is OPEN. It is up to a developer to make it more close and easier. They will into a distro. Linux's job is create an open core. It is up to distros to market and sell the products.

As far as efficiency for desktop apps I don't buy it. Things like OpenOffice and GIMP at least out of the box don't seem to run any better on the same hardware than even Vista when I've tested them. No sure, I'm sure there's someone who can fix that at least until the next version and then maybe we're looking for a new optimization.

Maybe, you don't like how these apps work. That is your opinion. If we are talking about their speed. GIMP is insanely faster than CS3. That isn't even a contest. Gimp loads in 1.4 sec for me. OpenOffice runs insanely faster than 2007. Maybe, you don't like the functionalities and interface of these two products. It could be also the name. Photoshop sounds a lot sexier than Gimp. Once again, I'm talking numbers, not taste.

So yes, Windows isn't Linux and Linux isn't Windows. Both have strengths and weaknesses and serve different user needs and environments and will coexist for our lifetimes without doubt.

Of course. What a person wants to do with their money is up to them.

 

[kac77]

one that comes in a limited number different versions from your basic sedan

You are kidding right?

This is a current list of supported versions of Windows:

* Windows Server 2008 for servers.
* Windows Web Server 2008
* Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition
* Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition (Microsoft Windows NT 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1)
* Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition
* Windows Storage Server 2008
* Windows Small Business Server 2008 (Codenamed "Cougar") for small businesses
* Windows Essential Business Server 2008 (Codenamed "Centro") for medium-sized businesses[1]
* Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems
* Windows HPC Server 2008 for high Performance supercomputers

* Windows Mobile 6.1 for smartphones and PDAs

* Windows Home Server

* Windows Vista, for home and business desktops and portable computers
* Windows Vista Starter Much like Windows XP Starter Edition, t
* Windows Vista Home Basic Similar to Windows XP Home Edition,
* Windows Vista Home Premium
* Windows Vista Business
* Windows Vista Enterprise (Microsoft Windows NT 6.0.6000.0) This edition is aimed at the enterprise segment of the market, and is a superset of the Business edition. Additional features include multilingual user interface support, BitLocker Drive Encryption, and UNIX application support.
* Windows Vista Ultimate
* Windows XP Embedded, for embedded systems requiring parts of the Windows XP infrastructure
* Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, a low-end version of Windows XP that is intended to be a thin-client that works with older hardware.
* Windows Embedded CE 6.0, for embedded systems (not based on the Windows NT kernel)

This doesn't even include Windows XP and it's versions, since it is technically still supported and can still be bought today. Anyway you look at it, that's a crap load of sedans... hell that's like every car line up from every GM brand.

 

[Gorankar]

You are kidding right?

This is a current list of supported versions of Windows:

* Windows Server 2008 for servers.
* Windows Web Server 2008
* Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition
* Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition (Microsoft Windows NT 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1)
* Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition
* Windows Storage Server 2008
* Windows Small Business Server 2008 (Codenamed "Cougar") for small businesses
* Windows Essential Business Server 2008 (Codenamed "Centro") for medium-sized businesses[1]
* Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems
* Windows HPC Server 2008 for high Performance supercomputers

* Windows Mobile 6.1 for smartphones and PDAs

* Windows Home Server

* Windows Vista, for home and business desktops and portable computers
* Windows Vista Starter Much like Windows XP Starter Edition, t
* Windows Vista Home Basic Similar to Windows XP Home Edition,
* Windows Vista Home Premium
* Windows Vista Business
* Windows Vista Enterprise (Microsoft Windows NT 6.0.6000.0) This edition is aimed at the enterprise segment of the market, and is a superset of the Business edition. Additional features include multilingual user interface support, BitLocker Drive Encryption, and UNIX application support.
* Windows Vista Ultimate
* Windows XP Embedded, for embedded systems requiring parts of the Windows XP infrastructure
* Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, a low-end version of Windows XP that is intended to be a thin-client that works with older hardware.
* Windows Embedded CE 6.0, for embedded systems (not based on the Windows NT kernel)

This doesn't even include Windows XP and it's versions, since it is technically still supported and can still be bought today. Anyway you look at it, that's a crap load of sedans... hell that's like every car line up from every GM brand.

No, not at all, the original topic, the original post, of this thread relates to mainstream desktop versions of the respective operating systems. There are dozens of distros that can be considered modern desktop oriented nix distros with essentially just Xp, (and I only include Xp because netbooks are still shipping with it, few non business desktops do anymore) and Vista home basic thru Ultimate in the mainstream on the Windows side. That is an impressive list though. You just seemed to miss that I was merely tossing a bone to nix for having virtually infinite customization potential. I was by no means stating Vista was the only current MS os.

The thread has really moved away from the OP's original question. Which basically boiled down to "I thought desktop versions of Nix were supposed to be faster than desktop versions of Windows, how come I am am not seeing it in actual use?" ..

 

[heatlesssun]

The topic was which OS is faster. Linux is faster. I don't know how to explain this to people. If the topic was which interfaces users will prefer, I would have stay out of this topic. Because, that is up to a person. It isn't based on numbers. It is based on a taste.

And that's my point. You need numbers for SPECIFIC tasks and functions. Without this context saying that one system is faster than another is meaningless. But I'm willing to except that for basic stuff like booting, sure Linux is usually faster on equivalent hardware.

Maybe, you don't like how these apps work. That is your opinion. If we are talking about their speed. GIMP is insanely faster than CS3. That isn't even a contest. Gimp loads in 1.4 sec for me. OpenOffice runs insanely faster than 2007. Maybe, you don't like the functionalities and interface of these two products. It could be also the name. Photoshop sounds a lot sexier than Gimp. Once again, I'm talking numbers, not taste.

I wasn't talking about my like or dislike of apps, I was talking about relative performance of the apps on the same hardware with different OS'es. I love GIMP and use it a lot (though I'm not graphic artist, I use it for very simple stuff) does load a lot faster on Ubuntu I'll give you that. Doesn't seem to run any better when I'm actually using it however.

As for Office 2007 vs OpenOffice, that gets very complicated. I've actually work heavily on Excel add-in development and just went though an Office 2003 to Office 2007 conversion and its like 50/50 from the feedback I get. Half hate 2007, the other half love it. Half think its slower, the other half see no performance difference or think its faster. Its a crap shoot and tough to explain. Some of it is hardware no doubt but I've seen people with older hardware claim that 2007 works better form them than 2003 and people with newer hardware say exactly the opposite. It's very confusing.

For me personally, 2007 lies on my machines. On my tx2z tablet Office 2007 kicks the living heck out of the newest version of OpenOffice. Word and Excel just fly. OpenOffice kinda huffs and puffs, even in Ubuntu.

That's why I'm really big on the context issue,

Of course. What a person wants to do with their money is up to them.

At the end of the day this is true but even beyond that, Windows my not serve one's needs like Linux may fall short for others.

If you need super fast, small footprint and ultra configurable then Linux is what will work for you. If you want to play games or use pretty much any hardware out of the box then Windows works better.

That's why they will coexist indefinitely. But I just don't see Linux as a big player on the desktop even though it will be out there forever no doubt.

 

[Joe Average]

That isn't even a contest. Gimp loads in 1.4 sec for me.

Paint Shop Pro loads before I realize I let go of the mouse button... what's the point?

 

[heatlesssun]

Paint Shop Pro loads before I realize I let go of the mouse button... what's the point?

Don't forget MS Paint. .86 seconds!

 

[requiemnoise]

Are you saying Gimp is bad as PaintShopPro? If I can bring anything up. I got mtpaint. I think it is 1140k app. The system requirement is 16megs of ram. I’m sure it will be under what you suggested.

I found an article that might interest you. It is a comparison between Ubuntu (probably not the fastest Linux distro) vs XP (fastest patched Windows)

http://mssaleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/ubuntu-710-vs-windows-xp-sp3-application-performance/

I’m sure someone will jump up and says, “he faked it. My eyes know better! It doesn’t snap like Vista 3D. I got 4,000 certs. I know more than you do!”

 

[jb_hafo]

Glad I just skim this thread. I've used both a live linux cd and windows,
and many who use FreeBSD appreciate its probably-better-in-a-few-ways
"we can skip the this-vs-that" discussions. (concentrating on other things.)
..........
Drawbacks though if you *need* an out-of-the-box distro/OS
..........
unless using one of the many desktopbsd, etc setups

 

[Ramp8g]

I just want to correct few things here.
Ubuntu isn't Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distro.

duh.

Huh? First there are many open source drivers that are more fully featured than their closed source counterpart.. A good example would be Creative, where it was the open source driver which gave dolby 5.1 etc to Vista machines with X-FI cards when Creative refused to support it. As for Nvidia, MS's generic drivers do a far better job at controlling the chipset than Nvidia's own drivers do. It all depends on what the hardware is, and the manufacturer making the hardware which determines the success of closed / open drivers.

What planet do you live on? And I wouldn't put a Creative sound card in your machine let alone my own. And Linux still can't come up with unified audio support. Pulse Audio? What are you kidding? I also wouldn't use any MS driver, especially for my mobo.

 

[heatlesssun]

Are you saying Gimp is bad as PaintShopPro? If I can bring anything up. I got mtpaint. I think it is 1140k app. The system requirement is 16megs of ram. I’m sure it will be under what you suggested.

I found an article that might interest you. It is a comparison between Ubuntu (probably not the fastest Linux distro) vs XP (fastest patched Windows)

http://mssaleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/ubuntu-710-vs-windows-xp-sp3-application-performance/

I’m sure someone will jump up and says, “he faked it. My eyes know better! It doesn’t snap like Vista 3D. I got 4,000 certs. I know more than you do!”

Cool. Really old stuff that he's testing. GIMP is a native Linux app that's been ported over to Windows, it should run better on Linux. But in this context Linux is faster than Windows.

Here's another take: http://www.mwales.net/Software/LinuxVsWindows/Linux_vs_Windows.html

 

[requiemnoise]

The test that I indicated was from last year. I think the article you found is a lot older. Fedora Core 4? That is like 2004. Also, he didn't test for any multitasking. Also, Unreal Tournament and Quake were natively coded for Windows. Not to mention, Fedora kernel is compiled like a server. It is obvious XP will win on audio. It is tweaked for the desktop functionality. When you test the encoding and decoding comparison between 2003 and XP, Xp is slightly faster. However, if you see the compression test, Linux wins. Linux kernel is superior when it comes to crunching numbers.

 

[heatlesssun]

The test that I indicated was from last year. I think the article you found is a lot older. Fedora Core 4? That is like 2004. Also, he didn't test for any multitasking. Also, Unreal Tournament and Quake were natively coded for Windows. Not to mention, Fedora kernel is compiled like a server. It is obvious XP will win on audio. It is tweaked for the desktop functionality. When you test the encoding and decoding comparison between 2003 and XP, Xp is slightly faster. However, if you see the compression test, Linux wins. Linux kernel is superior when it comes to crunching numbers.

The test was from last year but the hardware is 5 years old. Ubuntu 7 is like 4 years old. XP is almost 8 though yeah it was SP3. I'd be curious to see numbers vs. Windows 7 even on that hardware.

But see you are finally getting my point. Look at all the context and qualifications that you just made around these performance assertions. That's really all I've been trying to say.

 

[requiemnoise]

The test was from last year but the hardware is 5 years old. Ubuntu 7 is like 4 years old. XP is almost 8 though yeah it was SP3. I'd be curious to see numbers vs. Windows 7 even on that hardware.

But see you are finally getting my point. Look at all the context and qualifications that you just made around these performance assertions. That's really all I've been trying to say.

Yea, Linux is a winner.

Dude... I just re-read this. In case you don't how Ubuntu number things...Ubuntu 7.10 means... October 2007. Ubuntu 8.10 means it came out October 2008.
Fedorda 4 is from 2004. Of course, Windows games run better on Windows.

Comparing 7 with the latest Ubuntu? The benefit of 7 is the memory management. Since, you seem to be interested only by the single process tests, 7 would be slower. The benefit of 7 is able to handle mult-tasking a lot better than XP. 7 came from Win2008.

 

[kac77]

"I thought desktop versions of Nix were supposed to be faster than desktop versions of Windows, how come I am am not seeing it in actual use?" ..

Probably because they are burried amongst the different versions of Windows at Best Buy....LOL

In the end though it's just semantics. Different distros don't necessarily mean different versions of Linux. Since most of them use the same kernel. It would be like saying the customization done by OEM's which changes a stock version of Windows would be considered a different version. It's splitting hairs at some point.