You are on page 1of 28

Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.

com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Latest News Podcast Features Distros Code Apps Web Hardware

Don't miss: Frequently asked questions for Linux newbies

Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7


Posted at 12:50pm on Tuesday February 3rd 2009
In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users,
but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real-world tests? We put Ubuntu 8.10, Windows Vista and Windows 7
through their paces in both 32-bit and 64-bit tests to see just how well Ubuntu faces the new contender. And,
just for luck, we threw in a few tests using Jaunty Jackalope with ext4.

When Windows users say that Windows 7 is easier to install than ever, what do they really mean? When they
193 say it's faster, is it just in their heads, or is Microsoft really making big strides forward? And, perhaps most
diggs
importantly, when Linux benchmarkers show us how screamingly fast ext4 is compared to ext3, how well do
digg it those figures actually transfer to end users?

These are the questions we wanted to answer, so we asked Dell to provide us with a high-spec machine to give
4
all the operating systems room to perform to their max. Our test machine packed an Intel Core i7 920, which in
reddit
layman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache. It also had 6GB of
RAM, plus two 500GB of hard drives with 16MB of cache.

The tests we wanted to perform for each operating system were:

How long does each operating system take to install?


How much disk space was used in the standard install?
How long does boot up and shutdown take?
How long does it take to copy files from USB to HD, and from HD to HD?
How fast can it execute the Richards benchmark?

We also, just for the heck of it, kept track of how many mouse clicks it took to install each OS.

Before we jump into the results, there are a few things we should make clear:

To ensure absolute fairness, install time was measured from the moment the computer was turned on until
we reached a working desktop.
The same computer hardware was used for all tests, and all operating systems were installed fresh for this
article.
We used the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, simply because Windows 7 was
provided only in this flavour.
We used the Windows Vista SP1 disk to accurately reflect what users are likely to experience todaay.
Our Windows 7 version is the open beta that Microsoft issued recently. It is probable Windows 7 will be at
least this fast in the final build, if not faster.
For Ubuntu 9.04 we used the daily build from January 22nd.
All operating systems were installed using standard options; nothing was changed.
After checking how much space was used during the initial install, each operating system was updated
with all available patches before any other tests were performed.
Our journalistic friends have informed us that Windows Vista (and, presumably, Windows 7 too) has
technology to increase the speed of the system over time as it learns to cache programs intelligently. It
also allows users to use flash drives to act as temporary storage to boost speed further. None of our tests
are likely to show this technology in action, so please take that into account when reading the results.
The filesystem, boot, shutdown and Richards benchmarks were performed three times each then
averaged.

And, of course, there's the most important proviso of all: it is very, very likely that a few tweaks to any of these
operating systems could have made a big difference to these results, but we're not too interested in that - these
results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS, like most users do.

1 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Install time

Amount of time taken to install, from machine being turned on to working desktop.
Measured in seconds; less is better.

At first glance, you might think that Ubuntu clearly installs far faster than either version of Windows, and while
that's true there is one important mitigation: both Windows Vista and Windows 7 run system benchmarks
part-way through the installation to determine the computer's capabilities.

A bit of a flippant one - just how many mouse clicks does it take to install an OS with the
default options?

Surprisingly, Ubuntu 8.10 gets it done with half the clicks of Windows 7. NB: hopefully it's clear this doesn't

2 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
make Ubuntu 8.04 twice as easy to install. Measured in, er, mouse clicks; fewer is better.

Disk space used immediately after a fresh install. Measured in gigabytes; less is better.

While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they
probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard. NB: Vista failed
to detect the network card during install, leaving us without an internet connection until a driver was
downloaded on another computer.

Bootup and shutdown


Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as
soon as the desktop was reached. The Dell box does take about 20 seconds to get past POST, but to avoid
questions about when to start the timer we just started it as soon as the power button was pressed.

3 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Amount of time taken to boot, from machine being turned on to working desktop.
Measured in seconds; less is better.

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 is the only one to beat the one-minute mark, but that advantage is quickly lost
in the switch to 64-bit. Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is
one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release.

Amount of time taken to shutdown, from button being clicked to machine powering off.
Measured in seconds; less is better.

Windows lags a little behind the Linuxes, with 64-bit again proving a sticking point - this time for Windows Vista.

IO testing

4 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
To test filesystem performance, we ran four tests: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files from
HD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD tests
copied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk. For reference, the
large file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in
127 folders, making 603MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full
write had taken place.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from a USB flash drive to hard disk.
Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from one place to another on a single hard
disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Let us take this opportunity to remind readers that Windows 7 is still at least nine months from release.

5 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash drive to hard disk.
Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from one place to another on a single hard
disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally suffered
compared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux
doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures show a drastic performance difference between the two.

Notes: Vista and Windows 7 really seemed to struggle with copying lots of small files, but clearly it's something
more than a dodgy driver because some of the large-file speeds are incredible in Windows 7.

Both Vista and Windows 7 seemed to introduce random delays when deleting files. For example, about one in
three times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do

6 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
nothing for 25-30 seconds before suddenly springing into action and deleting the files. However, this wasn't part
of our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmark
Notes: This was done using the cross-platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8.10 uses
Python 2.5.2, Ubuntu 9.04 uses Python 2.5.4, and we used Python 2.5.4 on the Windows tests. Even though
the 64-bit results for Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed with
the Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to
20ms on Linux.

Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richards benchmark. Measured in


milliseconds; less is better.

7 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it's
not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results.

Switching to ext4
All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext3, so what happens when we switch to ext4? Well, not a
lot:

Boot, shutdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9.04/x86-64 using ext3 (blue) and ext4
(red). Measured in seconds; less is better.

Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext4 dropped by 8 seconds, which is a
fair improvement. We can probably discount the the USB to HD tests simply out of error margin, which leaves
the HD to HD tests, and there we find a very healthy boost: 3.7 seconds were shaved off the small files test,
making ext4 about 25% faster. Our tests also showed an improvement in the large file test, but it's not as
marked.

Conclusions
Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is
why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our
tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's
good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext4 now stable we expect it to be
adopted into distros fairly quickly. Sadly it looks like Ubuntu 9.04 won't be among the first distros to make the
switch, so users looking to get the best performance from their Linux boxes will either have to fiddle with the
default options, have patience, or jump ship to Fedora - which will be switching to ext4 in the next release..

You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter

193
diggs 4

digg it reddit

8 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Your comments

Comparisons
Charles Norrie (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 6:29pm
Tt's interesting you have to turn to pro-Linux blast to get decent comparions between Linux and Windows.

Well done for a bit of honest comparison wthot any marketing spin!

All I too am a Linux user, I'm glad to see the results which endorse my belief Linux is easier to use.

Here's a little table:

Issue Windows Linux


keyclicks to install More Less
Speed of start More Less
Moving files More Less
Benchmark tests about equal
Cost $100s Free

Why do you think this is sent from a Linux machine. I don't like wasting money!

Ubuntu !=linux
oz123 (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 8:12pm
a few notes:
First when you compare windows 7 to ubuntu you don't compare it to to linux.
I've used ubuntu for 2 years and now I find debian faster on everything. Plus, I already learned enough to optime my
machine really good. The strenght of UBUNUT is that it has really excellent hardware support, but that comes with a
cost - it fits everything, so it's really bloated and slow...

Second, when you compare python on windows 7 to python on ubuntu you should check how python on windows 7
was compiled and how on ubuntu - for example usually ubuntu packages are optimized for i386 arch. That ofcourse
has a price... I think windows 7 binaries where optimized to i686... but it has to be checked...

And finally, installation time is really not measured by second, rather by what you get after that.
In installing any modern linux distro today, icluding ubuntu, you get a really productive computer which includes a full
office suite, printer drivers and digital camera drivers and etc. With windows you get solitaire and mineswipper, and
note pad. With every product you have to connect to you computer you need to install drivers, and there is not
software coming with it... so in Total linux is much more usable after install.

So benchmark like this are not really convincing.

Richards benchmark
Peter Kraus (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:00pm
Hello,
could you throw at me the Richards benchmark you used? I'd like to run it on my own machine (running Arch and
Windows 7 from the time I was checking it) to see the difference...

Cheers!

Re: Richards benchmark


Richards (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:06pm
Try this: http://codespeak.net/svn/pypy/dist/pypy/translator/goal/richards.py

RE: Debian
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 9:24pm

9 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
@oz123:

While I agree that Unbuntu != Linux, I think this benchmark does right to ignore optimizations. This only tests the
default installation. I'm sure that Windows can also be optimized by removing uncessary services, reducing eye candy
etc. (but Linux would probably win there as well)

Perhaps the author could add a couple of distributions to the benchmark. And also try an install with KDE as well?

Boot-up times
Asterix (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 10:26pm
The boot up time is not representative. Ubuntu install comes with a full suite of software compared to Windowse with
just the OS. Load Windowse up with the a similar application suite and you'll be suprised how long it takes before you
can start working on anything. Windows showing a desktop is lightyears from being able to work with this thing. My
dual boot Ubuntu takes about 55 secs to boot while my Windowse with similar apps takes about 4 minutes before
clicking a mouse provides any response. Don't be fooled, it puts a desktop up infront of you very quickly, but it is
totally useless.

Wrong figure
Martin (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 11:39pm
The last figure, Fig. 11, is a duplicate of Fig. 10.

Another point on boot times


NIck (not verified) - February 4, 2009 @ 11:52pm
I would also like to point out that it would interesting to test boot times, once someone has installed 50 applications
onto each OS. Just think of the registry on windows 7, and all those little tray icons chewing up all the memory and the
disk swapping like an man walking on hot coals.

It is also worth pointing out that the install figures don't tell the whole story, once Ubuntu is installed, I have a fully
working desktop, with many applications, to make the comparison real, you would need to install the same number of
applications, and record those times as well. I suspect, once you have installed all the anti-virus, spyware, IM client,
office suite, IDE, graphics software etc, and spent around £2,000, plus spent at least another 2 hours installing it, the
comparison would be pointless.

Nick

Memory & Battery Life


talishte (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:04am
I know Vista needs 1GB (but slow) at less and I install Ubuntu with full efects in a old pc with an AMD 700Mhz 284RAM
and 32MB en Video RAM. In this aspects for movil PC Linux should be better options

boot time
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:58am
68 second boot times ? Mine only takes 15 .... that's factoring in the X-Server sleep :^]

@oz123, I think the title


Kurt (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:22am
@oz123, I think the title reads "Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7". Where is the "Ubuntu !=linux" coming
from? The author clearly states this at the beginning. It was also stated that DEFAULT configurations were used
(therefore, no OPTIMIZATIONS).

I myself would have liked to see other major linux distros in the mix (as well as Windows XP). That would be quite an

10 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
interesting read...

Ubuntu 9.04 does support


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:22am
Ubuntu 9.04 does support ext4, btw. Although you may need to install from the 'alternate' disk and manually partition
the disk.

I know it works. I'm using it now :) (Ubuntu 9.04 alpha3)

DRM checks?!?
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:30am
There is no such thing as "DRM checks" in Windows (when copying files). The only DRM-like things is PMP (Protected
media paths), but this code is only activated when you use Windows Media Player to watch DRM protected media. Not
when copying files.

DRM Garbage
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:31am
Quote:
"Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures
show a drastic performance difference between the two."

Can you explain to me your reasoning that DRM had _any_ impact on these benchmarks? I'm at a bit of a loss as to
why any DRM checks would be going on while you're copying random files from media to media. This might shock
you, but Windows doesn't do a DRM check on txt files, or mp3's, or jpg's, or, to my knowledge, effectively any file
whatsoever. Nor does it factor into the install process.

Seeing as your benchmarks don't include playback of DRM'd media, the DRM subsystem is wholly irrelevant, and
frankly, your mentioning it as a possible reason for any benchmark results seen above only serves to discredit what I
thought was otherwise a pretty reasonable benchmarking article.

Odd, actually. I experience


mjt (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:35am
Odd, actually. I experience faster times with a desktop
having less horsepower. Could be the distro, of course.

I exclusively use openSuSE (11.1) - a far superior distro


to Ubuntu, IMO. One an AMD 64 with 4GB RAM and four
1GB drives ...

My install time is about the same, but more of the kitchen


sink gets installed with openSuSE. I never count mouse
clicks for the install, because for me, it's more important
what gets installed - but I think the "newbie" install mode
for openSuSE is like 4-6 clicks. What I find more important
is "configurability" of install - with openSuSE, I have
more level of detail over install than Ubuntu could hope for.

Disk space used for final install. Yea, I have the kitchen
sink installed, so more than Ubuntu - not as much as Win,
but who cares with the price of storage these days.

Boot up time: about 25 seconds for me. Shutdown about 10.

IO performance? Bah ... we all know any *nix system will


beat a Windows box.

But what about all the other "performance" figures that


are usually missed? How about all the time it takes to

11 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
turn off and configure out all those nuisance security
dialog box items with Windows (?)

And don't forget the time it takes to download and install


the required antivirus/etc tools for Windows. And all the
subsequent maintenance tools that will be required for
a Windows box.

For me, it's not about install, bootup/shutdown, and file


copying times .... it's more about the daily productivity
I realize with Linux (I also use a MacBook Pro) over
Windows. I get MORE work done with *Nix than I do with
Windows because of the REDUCED overhead of the
weeklymaintenance chores inherent with Windows.

Thanks for the article!

Regards, mjt ... author, "Inside Linux"

great arguments all round, but what about gamers?


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:02am
i definately hear what everyone is saying, and by the looks of things, ubuntu is the better OS. HOWEVER, what about
people who want to run a blisteringly fast system, to play games on as well as run graphic-intensive programs?
ubuntu just really doesnt seem to hold its own in this respect......

Games
Asterix (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:38am
For games there is a thing called a Game Console. Games does not belong on a desktop unless you want to break
and bloat your install.

Boot times
Ruffinius (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:47am
I have both Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows 7 installed and I measure boot time from grub to gauge the OS performance
only. I've measured 14 seconds and 20 seconds respectively, of course Ubuntu has been tweak and has the Ext4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BmgenrKWc

Are you sure about the boot time?


darkmax (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:51am
It takes me about 48sec from a cold boot to full active desktop in Windows Vista, and about 37sec on Windows 7. Both
are 64 bit OSes. Where'd you get your figures?

BTW, Vista and Windows 7 tends to be slower just after installation. It get s faster once Super-Prefetch learns the
booting sequence.

don't know anything about


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:28am
don't know anything about ubuntu, just wondering about the install times. does ubuntu install all of the drivers that
win7 does, or does it take time to hunt them down and install them?

PC Gaming
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:39am

12 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Asterix, are you serious?

The PC has been the one gaming platform that has truly endured, and frankly, there are games you can play on a PC
that you simply can't play on a console. Not just due to processing power and capabilities, but superior control
mechanisms as well.

Not to mention things such as modding...

Either you've got no idea what you're talking about or you're a troll. I'm undecided which is worse...

Installation
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:03am
I think it should be mentioned, that a fresh installation of Ubuntu includes a full office suite and other usefull software
while with Windows all you get is more or less a naked OS.

>does ubuntu install all of


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:13am
>does ubuntu install all of the drivers that win7 does, or
>does it take time to hunt them down and install them?

of course yes

Benchmark
xTdub (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:13am
Something is up with your benchmarks. Windows 7 is faster for me in every way than Vista, except for shutdown times.
It takes me about 25 seconds from POST to desktop with a PC with lower specs. Also, Windows 7 only took 35 min to
install for me while Vista took near an hour. Also, Windows 7 automatically installs drivers and other things like that
during install, so the PC is completely usable at first boot. Also, about the amount of clicks to install, Ubuntu
installations are 80% keyboard based, maybe more. My 10 cents.

Boot Times
Jason Cartwright (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:31am
The boot times you have for Windows 7 are REALLY slow for that high spec system.

I have a 2yo laptop - 1.83Ghz, 2GB RAM, running Windows 7 32-bit. It boots in 37 seconds, compared to around 50
seconds with Vista.

So really not sure how a Core i7 with 6GB RAM could have a 59 second boot time.

With this benchmark being so far off what I've experienced, I seriously question all of your statistics.

Boot tome
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:40am
I am up and running with 7 office 2007 installed in 50 seconds and online. I have a p4 dell with three gigs. It's getting
like mac fanboys with ms and linux. I also find it much easier to install 7 than buntu and have done it with only 7 or 8
mouse clicks. I do agree with the fact that you have openoffice on the buntu install. 7 is an improvement and hopefully
will get better. I have never really cared for buntu or any other linux distro. They are just not pretty enough and who
likes to wake up with a cayote ugly install..............

Yes....
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:48am
It may be slower but whats it worth having a faster machine without really good software? I'm a long time Linux user

13 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
and its nice for web browsing etc. But what about indesign, photoshop, flash editing, video editing, music editing...?
Yes there are a few remakes with maybe gimp as the king. and maybe you cut all your holiday movies with Kino but
some people have to do serious work.

Daily productivity
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:59am
"For me, it's not about install, bootup/shutdown, and file
copying times .... it's more about the daily productivity
I realize with Linux (I also use a MacBook Pro) over
Windows. I get MORE work done with *Nix than I do with
Windows because of the REDUCED overhead of the
weeklymaintenance chores inherent with Windows.

Thanks for the article!

Regards, mjt ... author, "Inside Linux""

...more work done. Could you please explain what you "work" on Linux that flows so much better? Weekly
maintenance... on my desktop?!

Install times
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:01am
The only thing I'm quite surprised of is the install times. Specially for Windows. I thought Windows XP was incredibly
slow and difficult to install compared to Ubuntu. (Slow in time and difficult because my hd-controller on newer
machines never worked out of the box)

But after having to reinstall Windows Vista on my Thinkpad T61 (dual-core 2.2ghz cpu, 160ghz 7200rpm hd and 4gb of
ram) i was amazed on how deadly slow Vista (32bit) installed.

I had to wait for hours and hours. It definitely took way more than 4 hours to get to a working desktop and the first set
of 'updates' to install afterwards easily took another 2 hours.

I don't think i ever installed Ubuntu from scratch of cd-rom in 15mins (900s) but in my experience every Vista of XP
install took at least hours on modern hardware not 22mins..

How about Mac OS X?


Petr J (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:03am
It would be really nice to also see Mac OS X numbers. I switched from Windows to Mac mainly because of
performance, and I've been satisfied so far. But Ubuntu may be even faster, and I am thinking about moving from Mac
to Ubuntu. What do you think, should I?

A few words on disk space usage


Aux (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:18am
Don't forget that Windows creates a special file for hibernation which has the size of your RAM. Looking at the graphs
you will find out that the difference between Windows and Ubuntu disk space usage is almost 6 GB - just the size of
your RAM.

What really pleases me about


Paolo (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:30am
What really pleases me about this benchmark is the fact that the two operating systems are in the same league.

It's impressive if you think that one comes from a multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment from a single commercial
entity (a giant one), while the other is the product of the relentless and coordinated effort of thousands of people
around the world.

14 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
So having a high level commercial-quality product, mantaining control over it (source code), and free of charge, really
makes me feel good.

The sofware industry is the only one where this is happening, and I find it a very pleasant place to be.

Disk Usage
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:43am
A big difference between Windows and Linux disk usage is that Windows installation have to include a swap file (up to
several Go) where it is set apart in the Linux installation.

It is not sufficient to explain the difference between disk usage but it has to be noted.

Regards,

Ive ALWAYS wanted to do a test like that


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:59am
Ofcause i cant help to think how one of my favourite distros would reak havoc.

Gentoo: (ofcause this is just a though up one)

Installtime: 30 min -> 30days you'll never know

Mouseclicks to install: 0
Boottime with InitNG: 28 seconds (actually did that on a older laptop to gnome so not unreasonable)
performance: anything from debianish to GODLIKE depending on your magic touch .
Lastly , why not try tux3 or btrfs : BOOM crashy crashy

EULA?
Anonymous Windows fan (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 10:36am
You know, that benchmasking Windows 7 Beta violates the EULA?

nit pick
Malcolm Parsons (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 11:05am
"Measured in, er, mouse clicks; less is better"

s/less/fewer/

Different results
Robin Jacobs (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 11:58am
I suspect your test machine has some driver issues

On a much lesser spec machine (Asus eee 901 single core 1.6Gz Intel with 2Gb Ram)

From switch on to workable desktop: 41 seconds for windows 7 32bit, shutdown in 11 seconds.

For comparison: The same machine boots XP in 22 seconds to the desktop but before it´s usable 40 seconds will
pass.

Ubuntu on a eee 901 more than 60 seconds.

Grub delay
marcel (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:45pm

15 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Usually Ubuntu configures the bootloader Grub for a delay of 3 seconds. Did you set it to zero? Otherwise the results
are not correct.

ubuntu and win7 install times


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 12:53pm
well....i have an athlon xp 2600+ (1920 mhz), 768 mb ram(ddr 400 mhz), 2 year old 160 gb seagate hdd (IDE), nforce 2
mainboard. ubuntu takes aprox.20 minutes to install, win7 aprox 25 minutes, and vistaSP1 almost 28-30 minutes (all
are the 32 bit versions of the OS)
about the boot times i don't know....did not take the time to measure it :)). the only thing i can say is that win 7 is much
faster than vista.

I'd like to learn more about small file copy


Anonymous msfter (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:07pm
This is a set of interesting tests.

Could you please explain the details of your small file copy benchmark?

For example how many files, what's the average file size, how did you copy the files etc...

Thank you in advance.

Why Ubuntu???
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:16pm
If i can choose, i prefer Fedora to ululubuntu.

an IT bod of 20 years
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:25pm
I like the way he calls Windows 7 'a contender', as if there's actually going to be some sort of competition for the
desktop (as opposed to scrabbling for the <15% of machines not running a version of Windows).

He also treats both distro's as if Ubuntu comes with all codecs and s/w installed - it doesn't (Yes I know Windows
doesn't have .FLAC and the like, but it still outdoes Linux for ready-installed codecs by a large margin).

And, at the end of the day, it would have been nice if the open source community had been putting this much effort in
15 years ago, when it would have made a difference....

Lol
OMFG (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:25pm
Some more useless tests are coming?:)
I would recommend to switch off indexing after windows installation. Well, "pro-tester" like you should know that,
especially when copying from USB2HDD HAVE TO be exactly the same on every platform.
Install time and mouse click was the most pointless test ever!:o)
HDD usage in time of 2TB HDD is also quite funny:)
And bootup/shutdown time when windows has working STR since the end of the last millennium is also quite
pointless:o)
I really looking forward another pointless benchmark!!!:o)))

Errrr
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:28pm
Personally I couldn't care less on how many clicks are needed to install an OS [wouldn't more be better as it show that
you could have options?]. Obviously Ubuntu will install in less time and take up less disk space. It's 20% the size of

16 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Windows 7. And once again, I don't care on how long it takes.

I installed Ubuntu 8.10 on one system and at the first GUI boot-up it complained that my screen could not handle the
resolution. When I finally got it at a decent resolution, it still was way more than a 17" LCD could handle.

moon
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:44pm
ok

Hmmm....
Tyr (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:45pm
As a user of both platforms....I find the review a little bit skewed. I'm not calling the reviewer a liar, but some of those
numbers are pretty off. Some things have to be kept in mind as well, Vista and Windows 7 both have protection
running 24/7, and there's a resource and performance monitor running 24/7 too. To get a completely 'equal'
benchmark, you need to disable System Restore and all the resource, reliability and performance monitoring tools
within Vista/7. Granted, a straight default compare will show these numbers to the naked eye possibly, but you need to
note the fact that these things are going on in the background vs. Ubuntu which is pretty much raw and has no
overhead....which also means that if God forbid you have issues somewhere along the line, GL recovering. However, I
did some tests on my laptop which is lower powered than the test machine used in this review and I didn't get equally
representative numbers by any means. I only used 32 bit software, since I just wanted to get an idea and the machine
is a T330 with 2GB Ram and 160GB hard drive. Vista took ~1410 secs, Windows 7 took ~973 secs and Ubuntu 9.10
took ~930 secs. Ubuntu also gave me a helluva time setting up partitions, but I didn't count that.

The reason deletes/etc. take a while...like copying does as well is that the performance monitor benchmarks
everything, and superfetch caches everything. If you check the Reliability and Performance monitor, you can see what
I mean. Everything is there.

Windows works with indexing (to find files fast etc.) and superfetch (to read and write files that are repeatedly opened).
That means that the first time a certain file is copied/read/written it may take a while, but if that same file is dealt with
again the action is much faster. It also means that cutting/pasting is faster than copying. Superfetch means that
applications in general run a lot faster after they're used a few times. And indexing while using some overhead, pays
off when searching for files. This is an advantage. Because of this, your bootup and shutdown times aren't a true
reflection of Vista/7's numbers.
For instance, I run Vista Ultimate 64, I have been for about 2 years (so imagine the gunk in my system?!) and I boot in
47 seconds, start to finish (I have no less than 35 icons starting in my notif. area, mind you) and my system reflects
~17 seconds less than yours. I'm also not running as powerful a system as you are (C2Q 6600@3GHZ, 4GB PC 1000,
NV8800 GT, 2+TB HDs, etc.) Shutdown is a solid 15 secs. One reason 7 is faster than Vista is because MS has found
some way to optimize the process of monitoring everything at all times.

Now let's talk software. A bunch of people are saying that Ubuntu has so and so installed. Vista and 7 have it all as
well, with the exception of an office suite.
If you're going to test amount of clicks it takes from start to finish, it'd be nice if you tested some software installs from
sites like betanews etc. to see how quickly something installs in Ubuntu vs. Vista/7.

Now I read the little protection used for the review...."these results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS,
like most users do."
That's all well and good. But a great car isn't one that runs perfect in the first week of turning it on. It's the one that
lasts and keeps on running. Superfetch and indexing improves Vista/7s numbers over time, and system restore
protects users from crashes/install issues. I suggest you use the system for a week or 2 and then benchmark the
copies/deletes/boots/shutdowns again.

Re: an IT bod of 20 years


Blackhouse (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 1:54pm
"[...] He also treats both distro's as if Ubuntu comes with all codecs and s/w installed - it doesn't (Yes I know Windows
doesn't have .FLAC and the like, but it still outdoes Linux for ready-installed codecs by a large margin)."

Windows only comes with MP3, WAV and Windows Media support (well these are the codecs that matter most of the
available ones in windowss).

While Ubuntu cannot legally offer MP3 or Windows Media from install, it's ridiculous to say that out of the box Ubuntu

17 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
isn't loaded with a lot more software than Windows is. It comes with an office suite, chat, VoiP and a lot more out of the
box. The size of the Vista 64bit version (which is the Windows version I use) after install is ridiculous.

"[...] And, at the end of the day, it would have been nice if the open source community had been putting this much
effort in 15 years ago, when it would have made a difference...."

It still makes a difference, I'm very happy Linux and OSS are around :)

This is aggravating
Blaque (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:04pm
Why must people come complaining about their distro not being used or screaming "my distro is better". Get over if
folk. Go to your community and ask them to do a benchmark like this. First off he seems to want to compare a user
friendly desktop distro so Debian though it may be faster probably would not fit the bill. For that matter Fedora while
powerful and cutting edge is not as likely to work out of the box as Ubuntu is. This is no knock on Fedora because I
like the distro and I try out each new version so I KNOW its less likely to work out of the box. I've tried OpenSUSE and
found that as many have said it seems sluggish out of the box. Now if you ask me he could have tried Mint, PCLinux,
Mandriva and some others that are user friendly and that would have been fine as well. For whatever reason he went
with Ubuntu...that doesn't make Ubuntu == Linux.

As for the comparisons of Win 7 I have seen similar results with the beta I downloaded. I didn't get this feel of blazing
speed and it boots slow for me. These benchmarks confirm that I'd be wasting money paying for Win 7. The two are in
the same league.

Also I think that it should be reiterated. When installing Ubuntu (or almost any other Linux distro) you are getting
almost ALL of the drivers you need installed AND a full set of software for documents, graphics and more. I think it is
downright amazing that all of this is installed in the time it takes to get a basic OS shell in a Win7 install.

@Tyr
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:16pm
If I'm not mistaken Ubuntu comes with indexing turned on by default. There is no difference between the two. I don't
believe it has anything like superfetch by default as preload is an additional install but I could be wrong.

Is there a benefit to the performance monitor slowing your performance?

As for software yes Windows lacks and office suite. It also lacks a cross network messenger, Photoshop style graphics
editing software, DVD/CD burner application outside of the OS baked in functionality, a text editor of equal
functionality, a webcam application, a photo manager (could be wrong), a full email client (I don't think Outlook
Express counts compared to Evolution)... There simply isn't a comparison on software out of the box.

I think he should go ahead and use the system and then test again. The only thing Widnows is going to do is indexing
which Ubuntu is going to do as well. I don't see how this is going to affect the result by that much.

Antiviruuus
uu (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:25pm
All Windows must be benched with a Antivirus!

seriously

Minor Note on Boot Times


the rabid Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:38pm
I notice a lot of folks have been mentioning the extraordinary boot times for any of the OSes listed, and how on their
lesser hardware they seem to do better. Heck, booting Ubuntu from a USB stick on older hardware I seem to do better
(in general) but I haven't timed it. One note the author does make, however, is that the DELL post takes about 20
seconds -- so don't forget to subtract about that much from any of the listed boot times and things come in line with
what everyone else seems to be experiencing. As for the Vista system that still boots in about 47 seconds after two
years -- kudos! I worked on a Vista system the other day that was only about two weeks old. Boot was horrible,
because the user already had spyware and viruses! Pick a Linux, any Linux, and I'll bet you'd be better off! Any OS

18 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
that requires add-on software to keep it usable is deficient.

Wow....
TheNetAvenger (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 2:52pm
If this article was to invoke dialog, you were successful; however, if it was to inform users of any facts or even
perception of facts, it fails.

This article, the opinions and the methods of the test are a slap in the face of Ubuntu and Windows equally.

As many posts already try to explain, you have many massive inaccuracies in both fact and author's opinion of what
the OSes are doing.

Here are a few points that you might want to consider before you lose all technical credibility...

1) Get your facts dead on.

2) Don't assume what the OS is doing, know what it is doing and explain it instead of taking a guess.

3) Don't cross review technologies and then force them to conform to a standard set of scores. Example: The ext3/ext4
is pointless, and yet there is no information on NTFS. (Also this disregards what the FS are doing, like NTFS's
journaling and copy on write snapshot features. BTW - DRM has nothing to do with anything at the FS or NTFS level
EVER, that comment is just scary coming from anyone using a computer, let alone a technical review.)

4) Get technical people to review an article like this before you publish it. My tech team alone could have saved you a
lot of embarrassment.

5) Don't pick abstract 'benchmarks'... Do you really think users care how many mouse clicks it takes? Did you explain a
simple command line or installation script on Vista or Win7 can reduce this number to 0? You can also reduce the
clicks on Ubuntu as well. And just these anomolies make a 'test' like this pointless.

6) Don't disregard performance features of an OS as meaningless, and then go on to benchmark it for performance.
Example: There is a massive differnce between the first hour of operation on Vista or Win7 to the next hours of usage.
(Disregarding prefetching, superfetch, etc would be like turning off the caching features of Ubuntu and telling users it
won't matter in the performance differences.)

PS: Do you not realize that Vista/Win7 doesn't even optimize the boot time until it has been rebooted more than five (5)
times, a simple check of a MS Whitepaper explains, because it is expected that users are installing drivers and
software.

Our labs show quite different results, and some are more favorable to Ubuntu and some are more favorable to
Windows.

-----

At the 'best' you are losing the respect of technical users and at the 'worst' you are misleading non-technical users.
And sadly hurting both Ubuntu and Windows at the same time.

Wow...

The Net Avenger

"He also treats both


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:01pm
"He also treats both distro's as if Ubuntu comes with all codecs and s/w installed - it doesn't (Yes I know Windows
doesn't have .FLAC and the like, but it still outdoes Linux for ready-installed codecs by a large margin)."

Well in my opionion, i can play everything that's thrown at me in Linux (audio or movie wise) with 0 or 1 install
command. With Windows it's a continuous battle to find the correct codecs for every new type of audio/video file you
get and make sure that in the mean time you don't get swallowed by mallware/virusses or a crappy running machine
due to all the mega-codec-packs out there.

"If I'm not mistaken Ubuntu comes with indexing turned on by default. There is no difference between the two. I don't
believe it has anything like superfetch by default as preload is an additional install but I could be wrong."

19 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Ubuntu has a prefetcher or preloader or whatever they call it knowadays.. With preloads data from harddrive into
memory during the moments in the boot process where there is little or no disk I/O activity. This is mostly used to
speed up the boot process.
(But i cannot really speak on how this compares to superfetch on Windows from the hyper/techno-words it sounds like
superfetch does much more... but it's hard to know before getting real data on it's actual behaviour and impact)

On what planet
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:01pm
On what planet does windows vista boot faster than ubuntu? Really, I have two laptop machines one running vistax64
(with 4 gigs of ram, duo core, fresh install 2007 model from HP) and the other ubuntu 8.10 (2 gigs of ram, 2005 model
from FJS, had ubuntu running for 6 months) and not only doesn my ubuntu boots faster, it runs faster as well.

Nope, not buying Vista out-doing Ubuntu on ANY aspect, and it's not that I am a unix die-hard (my main machine is
winXP, ubuntu is my web-runner) but Vista is really bad performance-wise...

Large files seems rather of medium size


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:27pm
The large files in the test seems rather of medium size. Maybe the next test could use a few 700MB .ISOs, some
4.4GB dvd backups and maybe a directory with a few hundred ~20MB .RAWs and .FLACS.

test objectives
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:51pm
Next time I would measure not only the number of mouse clicks during install, but also the total angle rotated with
mouse wheel and, with windows of course, number of facepalms :-)

Live in peace or die in war!

User Freedom
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 3:57pm
there is more to a desktop than just a performance and is freedom of use for what ever purpose i need and ubuntu
provides all that and windows doesn't provide any of them.even if windows performs a lot more better i simply wouldn't
use it.
ubuntu is the desktop linux distribution that is in use by most no.of people in the world,therefore as a representive of
all GNU/Linux distributions in use UBUNTU is used.
All linux distributions should should learn from each other and the competition should be healthy and productive not
counter-productive.
This is the power of open-source model of development

20 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

I like it
Flavio (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 4:03pm
Of course we can't take this benchmark seriously but it's quite interesting.

For me, boot time is pointless but some people wants to have the desktop ready asap when turns it on. Someone told
about STR in Windows. Be careful! Windows needs to many restarts because of it's working model and I saw a lot of
people loosing data because never turned the notebook off.

The installation time and clicks needed should not be interesting for customers that buy Windows taxed as a part of
the computer's price but for people like me that had to make it after and outage. I install any Linux distribution
(Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Debian) with ALL needed codecs, office suites and a full hand of useful programs fully
updated in about an hour in a Pentium IV 512M ram. The last time I installed Windows XP, Office 2003, Adobe Reader,
antivirus and all Updates from Microsoft took me 6 hours on a dual core machine and 2GB of ram. Oh yes, and a pile
of CDs and DVDs for all of them.

Come on guys... how can someone say that Windows is serious business?

Transcode test
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 4:07pm
Another good benchmark would be to test handbreak on how quick a "home video" can be reduced in size.

Windows 7 on netbooks
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:18pm
The press are saying Windows 7 will be the answer to netbooks (and it isn't even released yet - its only beta).
Considering ubuntu has all it's applications in 2.3GB of disc space but Windows 7 is has almost nothing and yet still
takes 8GB then Windows 7 can't compete on the smaller netbooks because the OS needs too much disc space.
Windows based netbooks will still need a different spec to the lighter, leaner linux based netbooks.
Windows 7 isn't going to be the netbook killer after all.

IOPS test
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:33pm
An IOPS (Input/Output operations Per Second) test would be nice and not just bandwith :)

Good afternoon for


Van der Lancaster (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 5:36pm
Good afternoon for all..

Well, when I installed Ubuntu 8.10 64 bit, I got some dificulty to find the correct sound and wireless drivers - the video
and the modem worked fine. I spent about 12hs looking for these missing drivers and a little more to learn how to
recompile and install.
Oh, I needed to adapt the flash player, because adobe doesn´t have a 64 bit version of this software for linux.

On vista, I had my entire system working properly in 3 or 4 hours (includding office, anti virus and a final defrag).
And more - I found vista 32 incredible faster than ubuntu 64.

Finally, Open Office has corrupted one of my Excel files...

I tried both and I prefer Windows Vista (better even than Xp)

DRM Checks? Bogus


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:15pm
Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures

21 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
show a drastic performance difference between the two.

>
What?!
DRM inside Windows does NOT influence copy times. Please dont spread false information.

Don't forget the apps


Linxe (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:16pm
Ubuntu (and almost all Linux liveCD) include a lot of programs, you don't need to install MS-office, Adobe Photoshop,
and a large etc ...

Ubuntu works well, now just imagine using a better Linux (Fedora/Mandriva/Debian/OpenSUSE) ...

Nice attempt
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:22pm
Like the fact you tried to compare them, but many things could have been done different.
Compare apples to apples!!!

NTFS vs ext3? Nice.


Boot times? Vistas preloader doesnt work until AFTER its had a chance to figure out yoru pattterns, not on first install

Well...
Mario (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:27pm
Linux users could be right, but Windows is easier for 'common' people who don't know command-line management
(nor have time to learn it from scratch).

In the meantime, I'll install Ubuntu on my second partition and give it a try (because I'm interested and have time to
learn a new OS, but hey, not everybody's like me...)

@Anon Penguin - Nice Attempt


Kavey (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:36pm
The prefetcher is all about loading applications you use into memory from boot. If anything, this should slow down
boot time, not improve it. The purpose of prefetching is to load frequently used applications into memory before you
actually launch them improving startup times of applications, not the boot time of the system.

Although boot time to me is time from power on until I can do something useful. How about bootup, login, launch
Firefox (since it's available for both platforms) and browse to a simple web page. Sure that adds complexity to the
chart, but I don't care how quickly the computer pretends to be ready, I care about how long it takes until I can do
things on my system and expect it to actually respond to my requests.

Install and boot times for Linux vs windows


Mike Pav (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 6:46pm
I find it interesting to constantly see posts or threads on the net about the time it takes windows to boot up. The
burning question for me has never been how fast does the desktop come up, because by virtue of design, windows is
optimised to bring up the desktop very quickly. After the desktop has appeared and the windows jingle sounded, the
CPU and hard disk are always thrashing about sometimes for a couple of minutes on a fresh windows system loaded
with office, PDF reader, antivirus, anti-spyware.

For this test to be truly equal, all systems need to have equivalent software capabilities and security, but as we all
know, windows is not capable of looking after itself in this regard, so third party tools are required. That's a shame
because the third party tools will only add to the boot times as I would consider them, at the point of system activity
settling. Without further clarification of exactly how long it took for the hard disk and CPU to settle and a software and
security equalisation, I would classify the times posted for windows to boot as a moot point to be ignored.

22 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
With Linux (and I do not classify Ubuntu as the benchmark for Linux), the time is generally consistently somewhere
around 2 minutes for most of the distros I have personally tested, so I, along with others that have already replied, can
not take certain portions of this benchmark seriously, though to be fair, the title does give the names of the systems
tested. Where I see the benchmark failing in this regard is the use of the word "Linux" 12 times throughout the authors
text, whereas it should have been Ubuntu for this test.

I think if the test was to be further equalised, the Linux used should have all additional drivers removed so only code
for existing hardware is parsed at startup and services not required by the system for non-existent hardware should not
be loaded. I have seen Linux boot times drop from 54 seconds to 38 seconds when the add-ons were removed. If we
take that a step further and complie a kernel specific to the architecture and installed hardware, there will be not only
an additional speedup at boot, but often in certain aspects of general operation too. Why note these things? Windows
requires hardware drivers to be loaded and it loads those during bootup for the system it's running on, so it does less
than a "broad spectrum" distro installed from a Live-CD.

As for install times, I found my preferred distribution Mepis8, still in the testing phase and now at the rc2 level, installs
in close to 1/3rd of the times posted for the fastest Ubuntu install. There are others that have equivalent install times
too, but I think it is sufficient to say that that all things that are called Linux are not Ubuntu.

Mike P

why don't you compare gentoo or arch to windows


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 7:05pm
Comparing this 2 distros to windows (7 8 or 9, what you want) would be fun; I'm sure results would be very different...

I'm joking obviously, great article...

Jaunty has ext4


Dave K (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 7:41pm
Really nice article, thanks.

I am running Ubuntu Studio Jaunty Alpha 3 and it has ext4 available on install, which I use.

It does default to ext3, however.

I dont see what the big deal is though, choosing ext4 instead of ext3 is very easy.

Disk space on Windows includes swap file?


Matt S (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:38pm
Ubuntu etc. will usually create a swap partition. Windows generally throws a pagefile.sys in your C: drive.

If you just check how much space is used by the installation on the "Root" drive, you will get different values meaning
different things.

In the data here does the Windows value include the swap file? How was the data collected on each system?

I ask because I couldn't make Windows 7 use up 8GB on my systems with 1GB of RAM; the install was around 3GB
with a ~1GB pagefile.sys lurking around.

In English Please
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:50pm
Doesn't anybody use a spell-checker? Despite the various Windows versus Linux/Ubuntu arguments, I'm going to go
out on a limb, and guess most of you use Firefox, which by default has a spell check. Please, for the love of the
Internet, use it!

WTF was that? Boot times?

23 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:53pm
WTF was that? Boot times? How on earth does that have anything to do with benchmarking? You might as well
benchmark cows vs space shuttles and learn that cows win because they eat more hay.

I enjoy Linux, I am a seasoned sysadmin and I couldn't care less about the install time. Give me a solid OS and I will
be happy to spend a week getting the damn thing functional.

Bugger off, waste of everybody's time.

Very nice article!


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 8:55pm
I'm a Linux user and liked to read a neutral article, that doesn't try to "prove a point".

Some conclusion from reading it:

- Windows 7 is generally on par with Linux, in terms of performance.

- However, Linux is much smaller than Windows 7.

Even if Microsoft can trim Windows to (say) 3Gb, that's more than Linux uses -- and Linux already includes all the tools
you may need. (Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.)

This may be the key for Linux adoption in netbooks and smaller devices.

Time to desktop = meaningless?


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:03pm
I find it interesting that the boot time was stopped when the desktop was reached. I don't know if Vista or 7 are any
better, but in my experience with XP, it's at least another minute after the desktop appears before the machine is
usable, with so many tasks starting up in the background and churning disk. On my Debian install, as soon as the
desktop appears I'm good to go.

Perhaps a better measurement would be to stop once you have a page loaded in a brower?

Also, performance aside, I think for a lot of people the choice is more about which one best supports what they want to
do with it. Granted, I'm using old OSes so this is an obsolete comparison, but at least for me I find Linux has better
networking (XP has serious trouble with WPA), while Windows has better USB hotplug support.

You forgot patching time


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:07pm
Another measurement that should be included, right after install.

Time from reboot, to desktop, to patching/reboot cycle, to final desktop where patching is completed.

Van der Lancaster: Adobe


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:10pm
Van der Lancaster: Adobe DOES offer Flash for 64 bits for some time. No need to adapt the 32 bit package anymore.

EULA's
jaap (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:10pm
Does the Windows install time include reading (and understanding :-) the EULA?
Note that the GPL is not an EULA, it is only involved when distributing the software, not when installing, using or even
modifying it.

24 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Windows 7 != NT
ab123 (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:16pm
First when you compare windows 7 to ubuntu you don't compare it to to NT.
I've used NT for 2 years and now I find Windows 2000 faster on everything. Plus, I already learned enough to optimize
my machine really well. The strength of Windows 7 is that it has really excellent hardware support, but that comes with
a cost - it fits everything, so it's really bloated and slow...

Second, when you compare python on windows 7 to python on ubuntu you should check how python on windows 7
was compiled and how on ubuntu - for example usually Windows 7 packages are optimized for i686 arch. That
ofcourse has a price... I think Ubuntu binaries where optimized to i386... but it has to be checked...

And finally, installation time is really not measured by second, rather by what you get after that.
In installing any modern NT distro today, icluding Windows 7, you get a really productive computer which includes a
full office suite, printer drivers and digital camera drivers and etc. With Debian you get grep and vi, and bash. With
every product you have to connect to you computer you need to install kernel modules, and there is not software
coming with it... so in Total NT is much more usable after install.

So benchmark like this are not really convincing.

Blackhouse: check up on
wombat (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:17pm
Blackhouse: check up on Windows 7 multimedia support. Things have changed positively.

Author: The bit about DRM is just mind-bogglingly dumb.

Really, the guy that said


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:18pm
Really, the guy that said benchmarking the 7 beta is against the EULA is right. Plus, I'd love to see XP(x86/x64) vs
Ubuntu(x86/x64).

Wothless
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:23pm
What a waste of time....as was this post.

25 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Ubuntu != GNU/Linux
EldarBerserker (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:27pm
i agree with all the people that says that ubuntu is not gnu/linux... i've used ubuntu, and deleted after 2 hours of
playing with it. i prefer Debian instead, or Slackware or even openSuSE.

the numbers of clicks of installing software with default options is not an item to be in consideration, because for me
Ubuntu is a Unnatended version of Debian... so you'll have to compare Ubuntu with XP UE or Vista UE or a Win7 UE if
it's exists...

i know every linux distro installs office suite, but... ue does it too, drivers... in linux i can't make work my webcam, even
if the box says that was linux compatible.

the counter for linux, is from a designer point of view, gimp is good... photoshop is a thousand ways better... the layer
effects of photoshop i use a lot, the emulation of this in gimp is very poor. Flash CS3 or CS4 , i can't make it work
under wine, i've tried a lot... but it stills have some bugs to be fixed... this part still makes me install windows

but i know that gnu/linux still have strong points over windows, like the filesystems and the security that de filesystems
allow and the "ready to work after install".

so if you wan't to compare operating systems... compare asking to people that have used both systems, which
systems feels mo confortable in the daily use of a computer...

It's not the OS that


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:37pm
It's not the OS that matters. It's the applications. The GIMP still sucks. Photoimpact 5 (from 1999) is still better than
GIMP UI wise. Make an opensource version of <b>PHOTOSHOP</b>, with a Photoshop like GUI, and decent
performance.

Fedora
Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:37pm
I'd like to see these tests run again in a few months time when Fedora 11 has shipped, since a large number of
upcoming features have a positive effect on performance (20 second boot being the most obvious).

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/FeatureList

Installing Gentoo... 0 clicks


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:38pm
But it takes 3 days! Ha. Had to put that in. I love Gentoo.
Nice article - well done

This is the silliest "benchmark" I've seen in a long time


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:39pm
Like, wow.

26 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Is it user friendly compare to Windows?


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:42pm
I have a laptop which run Ubuntu but the problem is

1. when ever my daughter wants to watch video/games on pbskids.org, firefox on ubuntu dones't load these games.
2. Realplayer embedded in firefox doesn't work on ubuntu even though I have installed realplayer Linux version of
application.
3. I have a VCD on PAL format which movie player on Ubuntu doesn't detect.

All of these above works fine on windows. Do I care if Ubuntu boots faster or load application faster 2-3 milli seconds
compare to windows but non of above uses cases work?

Is this article a joke? Benchmark something important.


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:50pm
Okay - since you're writing this article from a user perspective, lets look at these results from a user perspective.

INSTALL TIME - Irrelevant. Your average user isn't installing, and when they do, they're running a recovery disk which
merely images the disk.

INSTALL CLICKS - Irrelevant, as mentioned.

DISK SPACE USED - Irrelevant to MOST home users. With 250gig and 500g HDDs standard, a difference between 4
and 8 gigs means nothing to them.

BOOTUP TIME - Aha! Here's something that is relevant. :) However, in this test, Windows beat Linux in all categories
except 64-bit Windows 7, where it only lost out by 2 seconds. Many people are claiming "but it isn't useable at
desktop". How many of these people are using Windows 7? Mine is useable, at the desktop, after 50 seconds.

SHUTDOWN TIME - A mostly irrelevant test, unless you're restarting, but interesting all the same. It appears the 32-bit
Vista was doing some cached-writing or patching at the end there. It's hard to tell what it was doing though. I guess
this test is relevant if you're .. no, I can't really think of a scenario.

IO TESTING - Ah well. Fair enough test. Your disabled the write-caching which speeds up Windows copying, which
makes it simply a test based on file systems. And yes, ext is faster than NTFS. :)

RICHARDS TEST - The only real benchmark here. Windows wins.

I would like to see a real-world comparison, rather than install tests the average user is hardly ever going to run into. I
believe that in acutal usage tests, Linux would be faster in every category, but this kind of "benchmarking" is purely
situational and subject to very easy tampering of results. It doesn't appear you did tamper (much) but obscure testing
like this doesn't support either cause.

And Charles Nome - Did you even check the results? Your table is all wrong:
Issue Windows Linux
keyclicks to install More Less (Arguable - they appear in this test to click everytime it said RESTARTING IN 30
SECONDS, and clearly at the 29th second in order to drag out the time-test).
Speed of start More Less (Are you kidding? Windows was faster in 3/4 categories, and the only one it was slower in
was by 2 seconds.)
Moving files More Less (see above)
Benchmark tests about equal (If they were the other way around, you'd be saying LINUX CLEARLY FASTER. So lets
be honest here - WINDOWS CLEARLY FASTER.)
Cost $100s Free (I think you'll find they're both free *cough*)

@DRM Checks? Bogus


Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - February 5, 2009 @ 9:50pm
you might want to read these:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/08/hdcp-vista.ars

27 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM
Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar Linux http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7
Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

1 2 3 4 5 next › last »

Post new comment


Your name:

Title:

Comment: *

CAPTCHA
Fill in this captcha, or you shall be mocked mercilessly.

Username: Password: Create Account | About TuxRadar

Web hosting by UKFast


Copyright © 2009 Future Publishing, all rights reserved.

28 of 28 11/8/2009 7:46 AM