Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

[susikala]

That's not the point. I don't need to read the article to complain about its existence: I get to read here every second day the line 'If you want more of these articles, make sure to check out the premium subscription program, or click our affiliated links'.

My point was I'm not going to donate or click those links if the content here contains in this direction, accompanied with shallow, populistic titles.

[deanjo]

That's not the point. I don't need to read the article to complain about its existence: I get to read here every second day the line 'If you want more of these articles, make sure to check out the premium subscription program, or click our affiliated links'.

My point was I'm not going to donate or click those links if the content here contains in this direction, accompanied with shallow, populistic titles.

So your against Phoronix appealing to the interests to the majority of it's readers. How dare they. It's asking a question, one that has been asked many times. Go back and read the forum threads on the development of PTS that introduced a way of comparing them and you will see you are in a minority.

[yotambien]

I think a more appropriate title for this article is, "Is Michael Actually Becoming a Microsoft Fanboy?"

I don't see anyone providing benchmarks for Ubuntu OR Linux on BBSs decidated to Windows. Why? Because no one cares (they're using Windows and THAT'S why they're are there). For me as someone who uses Linux and is therefore here, to read LINUX-related stuff, I don't give a rat's ass about any comparisons to Windows. The fact you use your allegedly limited (as you care to mention every day) resources for this sort of crap actually makes me rethink if I should make any donations or continue to visit this site.

And always those populistic titles... seriously, the level of journalism here is starting to really get on my nerves.

Pushing boundaries, are we? Now making a comparison involving Windows makes you a fanboy. But of course we care about this, 8000+ views in less than 48 hours should give you the clue you lack. Only those who feel their narrow world view threatened wouldn't want this sort of comparisons to see the light of the day.

That's not the point. I don't need to read the article to complain about its existence: I get to read here every second day the line 'If you want more of these articles, make sure to check out the premium subscription program, or click our affiliated links'.

My point was I'm not going to donate or click those links if the content here contains in this direction, accompanied with shallow, populistic titles.

That brings the bitching to unprecedented levels: it's not the contents of the article you complain about, but it's mere existence. Quite an achievement.

Meanwhile, the majority here will keep discussing an interesting article (and quite a hard one to pull off).

[kraftman]

And always those populistic titles... seriously, the level of journalism here is starting to really get on my nerves.

Couldn't agree more. The first page is so biased, but overall it's good to know how proprietary Linux graphic drivers compare against Windows ones.

[blackiwid]

I have to stay beside susikala, this title makes maybe some sence but the next one is really stupid, saying that Ubuntu would be more power-hungry because in one setup with a binary driver Ubuntu looses:

"Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7" that?s not fair and not objective. Maybe your site gets more hits with such articles but is that the only goal, on each price?

I?m happy to get some more benchmarks from this site, because before phoronix there where only very few benchmarks out there, it?s ok to benchmark a Linux distri against windows, but don?t think that 1 or 2 small test-scenaries would be enough for such conclusions.

[yotambien]

Don't worry, guys, it is well known that Windows and MacOS have 'advocates'; Linux has 'apologists'.

[susikala]

No one has actually yet answered what I said ad rem, but merely attacked me personally.

What do Windows benchmarks have to do on a site centered around Linux? There are so many sites dealing with Windows and benchmarks ON Windows, there's really no need for another one. That's my major complaint. You can interpret it however you want, but I see this as this site's owner selling in building on the Linux-made reputation to make money.

If the majority of the users here were of the sort which would simply take the best operating system for gaming, then there would be no point for this site: it's obviously Windows (or a console), and it's going to stay that way for many years to come. People are here because they use Linux AND still want to play games on it as far as possible. To that effect, those tests are meaningless, a waste of time and (apparently) money. If someone here is going to stop using Linux and start using another OS because of them, then they were clearly not meant to hang around to begin with, since their priorities lie somewhere else than what Linux currently gives and will give in the next few years at the least. It's a server OS, it's going to take a -very- long time until/if it reaches some sort of performance parity with Windows as far as games are concerned.

What is more, Windows is a closed source operating system. It's not as if you can read its code, and in case it is better at some areas, port it over. It's not like you can "learn from the competition", as some here claimed. You can just stand by and watch money get hurled at crap.

[bridgman]

susikala, I thought the purpose of the benchmarks was to help determine whether the long-standing "linux graphics are much slower than windows graphics" complaints were still true today. The results indicated that there were still differences, but probably much smaller than most people would have expected, which I saw as a good thing for Linux.

[haplo602]

No one has actually yet answered what I said ad rem, but merely attacked me personally.

What do Windows benchmarks have to do on a site centered around Linux? There are so many sites dealing with Windows and benchmarks ON Windows, there's really no need for another one. That's my major complaint. You can interpret it however you want, but I see this as this site's owner selling in building on the Linux-made reputation to make money.

If the majority of the users here were of the sort which would simply take the best operating system for gaming, then there would be no point for this site: it's obviously Windows (or a console), and it's going to stay that way for many years to come. People are here because they use Linux AND still want to play games on it as far as possible. To that effect, those tests are meaningless, a waste of time and (apparently) money. If someone here is going to stop using Linux and start using another OS because of them, then they were clearly not meant to hang around to begin with, since their priorities lie somewhere else than what Linux currently gives and will give in the next few years at the least. It's a server OS, it's going to take a -very- long time until/if it reaches some sort of performance parity with Windows as far as games are concerned.

What is more, Windows is a closed source operating system. It's not as if you can read its code, and in case it is better at some areas, port it over. It's not like you can "learn from the competition", as some here claimed. You can just stand by and watch money get hurled at crap.

blah ... had a long and logical post writen in reply .... then I reread the post and figured I won't bother. for some reason, susikala seems to me like a carriage horse with rather large eye-flaps.

[smitty3268]

susikala, if you can't see this article is all about linux (and how it stacks up to it's competition) then you're blind.

Now if we start seeing articles about OSX versus Win7 with no sign of Linux, or Windows versus itself on different hardware, then you might have a point.