Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #46
    The thing about WinFS, it is really just a layer over NTFS, so, MORE OUCH!!!

    Comment


    • #47
      ntfs have many versions, vista have new ntfs, xp have old ntfs, nt have ultraold ntfs

      Comment


      • #48
        This benchmark seems to be have been done wrong: obviously on userspace CPU-only tasks there cannot be any significant difference.

        Thus, the OpenSSL results are almost surely wrong, probably because it was compiled differently, it used a different amount of threads or did not trigger turbo boost if single-threaded.

        No detailed description of the work done seems available, by the way, and the benchmark suite seems way too small.

        Also a laptop might not be the best choice of hardware.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
          Actually... I correct myself... 13 years between NTFS and EXT4 unstable, and 15 years between NTFS and EXT4 stable. So that makes NTFS 17 years old. OUCH! Too bad that WinFS never made it out.
          If your not going to include the various versions of NTFS in your time line then you would have to treat all the ext file systems the same way. ext debuted in 1992 so that would make it 18 years old.

          Comment


          • #50
            Lets see the same comparison with ATI/AMD please. It would be rather helpful for those looking for a multi-OS workstation solution to compare ATI to NVIDIA in this space for equivilent/competing models.

            Comment


            • #51
              It's about time to kick Windows in Windows...

              @RealNC Maybe you got that backwards,

              It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it slower, but the whole system don't locks up while doing IO. Windows is faster, but the system don't stays fluid while the operation is executing.

              At lest that i noticed while am doing cleaning on family system, Linux never locks up on but Windows sometimes have to wait that stupid links in folder to the job what ever they do and show up finally.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by filip007 View Post
                It's about time to kick Windows in Windows...

                @RealNC Maybe you got that backwards,

                It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it slower, but the whole system don't locks up while doing IO. Windows is faster, but the system don't stays fluid while the operation is executing.

                At lest that i noticed while am doing cleaning on family system, Linux never locks up on but Windows sometimes have to wait that stupid links in folder to the job what ever they do and show up finally.
                It's the opposite for me though. Linux locks up when copying large files. Windows (7, 64-bit) never does.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Yes. Actually throughput and responsiveness ususally go in opposite directions. For instance, the description of the frequency settings in the kernel suggests higher values for better desktop responsiveness at the expense of throughput performance, if I remember correctly.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X