Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Especially if one wants to "hopefully dispel all sorts of myths and FUD".

    Comment


    • #42
      The chart colours for CI7 on the X-Plane chart (page 9) are around the wrong way.

      I'm also irked that one can't compare between CPUs (to help make a purchase decisions for future CPUs/video cards) as the memory amount and video card changes for each system.

      Comment


      • #43
        One other thing I would suggest, especially on the gaming tests is to run them with sound enabled as this could have measurable effects on game play.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by hax0r View Post
          Windows is still a lot better for desktop, where latency and GUI response matters. There's is no good DE today, none of them are optimized or are memory efficient. They're are slow, featureless, and they suck.
          It's only better in 2D and maybe in 3D. You should rather say GUI latency/responsiveness, because Linux kernel is much more responsive. Windows DE sucks because it's not as half feature rich as KDE (I know you're a Gnome troll, so I'm not surprised why did you said this). Windows is not memory efficient - my 32 bit XP consumed more memory then my 64bit Arch Linux (I couldn't believe!), I can only imagine how amount of memory Windows 7 consumes. It's slow (except graphics).

          Scheduler performance (average, worse):

          Linux: 0.009mS 0.3mS
          Windows: 2mS scheduling latency 16mS

          http://widefox.pbworks.com/Scheduler#Timeslice

          Windows looks like a big, fat cow. If you cannot backup what you said just be a nice troll and be quiet, please.

          Originally posted by Remco View Post
          I thought the conclusion was that Windows and Ubuntu were pretty much the same, with some wins for Windows and some wins for Ubuntu. Michael actually says so specifically. On the last page, he quotes a myth that has been busted. Maybe he should have explicitly said "This is clearly false; the performance is pretty much the same."?
          It's sad the title is misleading and introduction is very irritating. The newest graphic drivers were tested (which have different versions!) and not the ones which are parts of both systems(?), so the tittle "Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04" sounds misleading. Introduction sounds fuddish too, because those performance differences are rather because of differences in graphic drivers which were used and not because of Ext4 or "kernel getting bloated, because its package is big". At least, the last page is free of marketing talk.

          Comment


          • #45
            I would like to see a benchmark using EXT 4 on a spinning platter hard drive... It seems like all the benchmarks are using SSDs.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by hax0r View Post
              Windows is still a lot better for desktop, where latency and GUI response matters. There's is no good DE today, none of them are optimized or are memory efficient. They're are slow, featureless, and they suck.
              Windows might be better for a desktop than Ubuntu Linux, but it is by no means better than Linux. Ubuntu Linux has kernel that is optimized for servers, which prevents a fair comparison from being done of Linux and Windows. Just the fact that Linux is represented by Ubuntu does not mean that it is a fair representation of what Linux can actually do.

              Comment


              • #47
                I'm setting up the PTS on Win7 right now myself, and I see that UT2004 isn't integrated into it yet, so I can understand why it wasn't included in the test then. When will it be implemented, by the way?
                Also, a test based on Unreal Engine 3 would be awesome since a lot of current day games run on it... However, I'm not aware of any UE3 games on Linux, although it's obviously possible (we even saw UT3 screenshots on Linux...).

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post

                  Scheduler performance (average, worse):

                  Linux: 0.009mS 0.3mS
                  Windows: 2mS scheduling latency 16mS

                  http://widefox.pbworks.com/Scheduler#Timeslice

                  Windows looks like a big, fat cow. If you cannot backup what you said just be a nice troll and be quiet, please.
                  With all due respect Kraftman that link is a bit dated. We know for a fact that there has been performance regressions introduced since 2.6.28 and that Win 7 has improved it's performance over Vista so that link isn't exactly representative of current offerings.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    One other thing I would suggest, especially on the gaming tests is to run them with sound enabled as this could have measurable effects on game play.
                    Yeah, especially under Gnome with Pulse Audio enabled.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      With all due respect Kraftman that link is a bit dated. We know for a fact that there has been performance regressions introduced since 2.6.28 and that Win 7 has improved it's performance over Vista so that link isn't exactly representative of current offerings.
                      Which and where (in both cases Linux and Windows)?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X