Windows Performance Vs Linux Performance


Recommended Posts

MiG-

TBH ive tried ubuntu, SUSE, and tbh, they arent that fast, and check my system spec lol.

the only thing that linux is crap for is boot up times, no matter what distro i try, it always runs like a million checks and things on boot, that make it boot a lot longer than windows..

desktop speed and the rest is almost identical... there cant be much faster than "click - program runs".

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

There're several things on init scripts that might be unnecessary on your machine (eg. you probably don't need to detect new hardware every time you boot, nor you do need to detect nfs stuff if you wont be mounting remote drives at boot time).

There's a tutorial somewhere in the gentoo forums explaining how to speed up the boot process removing or tweaking some of those checkings (it's obviously aimed at gentoo's init scripts, but I guess something similar can be done on any other distro).

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Since we seem to be talking bootup times, let me weigh in with a few facts (sprinkled with some opinions) ;)

  • Booting isn't something that I do very often. Maybe once in a month, if there is a kernel update that I want. For people who dual-boot, and switch between Windows and Linux, I understand that this could be a small issue - but for a Linux user, it is a non-issue.
  • Services and startup scripts can be modified. Some are sort of advanced things, but others are not. For example Fedora starts up sendmail on bootup, which is a mail server and totally unnecessary (and a possible security risk) for home users. It is three words in a root shell to remove: yum remove sendmail and it is a non-issue.
  • Linux, by default, does a sequential startup. This can be changed in many places to parallel. Again, this is sort of advanced, and I have never had need for this.
  • When Windows is showing you the login, or the desktop, it really isn't done with booting up. It is noticeably sluggish for a while as it finishes the rest of its boot process. Yes, it is nice that it shows you this early, and lets you try to start working, but don't confuse the display with being "done" booting.

I lump in "boot times" close to "install times" with my level of concern over an OS's speed. It is a very infrequent task, and there isn't enough of a time difference to me to be concerned. It takes me longer to make a trip to the bathroom to pee. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

There is one area that Linux really does poorly in: Application launch time.

Other than that, performance is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

I have no complaints about launch times (and I'm not prelinking anything).

Maybe it's slow for other people standards, but it seems pretty fast to me (in my box at least) :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

I have no complaints about launch times (and I'm not prelinking anything).

Maybe it's slow for other people standards, but it seems pretty fast to me (in my box at least) :unsure:

On my older box, Linux seems to launch things painfully slow compared to windows. I guess I also read this article recently:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=140

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerowen

After some experimentation I think some of the slowness may just be particular software. I just extracted Firefox 1.5.01 and am using it, and it runs surprisingly faster than the default one that came with FC4, even with the same extensions and themes applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

it's mostly due to poor drivers and more layers for things to get from input to hardware to output. Not to mention linux distros are nothing more than many uncordinated projects who can be coded by anyone of level of programming experience and expect it to all work together. It's actually a wonder that it works at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerowen

I managed to tweak some of my running services and it works fine now, as fast if not slightly faster than Windows. It just took me a little longer than 5 minutes to do what I wanted to do. Here's a screenie of my desktop Even got a matching Firefox theme called "Red Shift".

Edited by marcusdean.adams
Link to post
Share on other sites
MiG-
When Windows is showing you the login, or the desktop, it really isn't done with booting up. It is noticeably sluggish for a while as it finishes the rest of its boot process. Yes, it is nice that it shows you this early, and lets you try to start working, but don't confuse the display with being "done" booting.

i can still load all of my firewall crap, ITE smartguardian, steam, msn beta, creative drivers and activesync before linux gets me to the logon screen...

i mean little things like syncronishing a bloody clock on boot... wats that all about ? :rofl:

and i dual boot, and switching between 2 OS's is a pain in the ass anyway...

wat i would like to see is a Linux Distro that is like the X360 consoles GUI, and can act like a games console. That would be cool.

MiG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

it's mostly due to poor drivers and more layers for things to get from input to hardware to output. Not to mention linux distros are nothing more than many uncordinated projects who can be coded by anyone of level of programming experience and expect it to all work together. It's actually a wonder that it works at all.

This is nothing more than TROLL comments. If you have no useful comments, then go somewhere else.

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
Renshaw

Well dude actualy.

In my view windows wins.

I used it for two days.

GIMP was closet thing to photoshop i could find.

I Linux wouldn't let me multitask while rendering and took alot long to do tasks.

Although it did load my 4.6Gb play list intently while it takes 10min for itunes.

Even though i went back to windows cause of image rendering time.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
fungusman
There're several things on init scripts that might be unnecessary on your machine (eg. you probably don't need to detect new hardware every time you boot, nor you do need to detect nfs stuff if you wont be mounting remote drives at boot time).

There's a tutorial somewhere in the gentoo forums explaining how to speed up the boot process removing or tweaking some of those checkings (it's obviously aimed at gentoo's init scripts, but I guess something similar can be done on any other distro).

But windows does this and its super fast, why should you have to turn it off in linux?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterC

My ubuntu seems just as fast, if not faster than my XP system.

Same here... I've got Ubuntu 5.10, and it runs a heck of a lot faster than my XP box :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerowen

But windows does this and its super fast, why should you have to turn it off in linux?

There's a lot of server processes that run by default as Mark Jensen said that aren't necessary. I managed to get my box working just as fast as Windows, but I have access to all of my favorite software. My Windows partition loads crazy fast though I will admit, with 640 of RAM I can boot Windows and be playing Half Life in less than 2 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

But windows does this and its super fast, why should you have to turn it off in linux?

Probably because, besides the services enabled on linux that you don't have on windows, boot times are nowhere near being linux devs' main concern. There's just no need to reboot linux, or even shut it down if you're running a server. Actually you can even switch kernels without rebooting using kexec (just a soft reboot, no POST or anything).

If for some reason you really need a blazing fast boot, replace sysvinit with initng on any distro. You'll already be browsing with firefox when windows hasn't even shown the login screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

Some distros are more desktop oriented and don't install background server processes. Other distros include everything but the kitchen sink.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rob2687

Yeah, Initng is pretty freaking fast. I can boot an old P3 laptop in under a minute... and more than half of that time is probably waiting for it to POST after when Gnome is loading.

Using those kernel patches can also improve responsiveness for desktop users. I've never had either Gnome or KDE lock up for me. I use Gnome primarly, tried KDE for a while but didn't like it. Most distros if you stay with the stable releases then you should be okay. Obviously if you install the latest bleeding edge stuff there could potentially be problems.

btw: ctrl-alt-backspace is all you'll ever need if the GUI goes wacky. Just drop to the console and do whatever, then start up X again.

Edited by Rob2687
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leddy

Now that we've settled that Windows is indeed faster...

:)

For me, I find XP (which has been running on my wife and kids' PCs for years) to be unstable and prone to problems requiring a reboot. An anectdotal point, which carries little or no weight at all.

My sister's Windows XP PC is a nightmare. She just doesn't know how to look after it at all, and after a few months it just clogs with junk and spyware and all sorts of crap.

Linux users are different- they all know what they're doing (or I'd imagine so.) It's a matter of knowing how to USE your computer; if I put my sister on a Linux box (besides her saying "wtf is this?"), she'd screw up the install within a week and I'll have to reformat it.

Same with Windows users- the ones who know what they're doing keep their systems clean, and it doesn't tend to slow down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Now that we've settled that Windows is indeed faster...

huh? :blink:

if I put my sister on a Linux box (besides her saying "wtf is this?"), she'd screw up the install within a week and I'll have to reformat it.

Care to explain exactly how can a plain user screw up a linux system?

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
Now that we've settled that Windows is indeed faster...
As I have previously stated, you cannot issue a blanket statement of "xxxx is faster than yyyy" and be correct.
My sister's Windows XP PC is a nightmare. She just doesn't know how to look after it at all, and after a few months it just clogs with junk and spyware and all sorts of crap.
Such strangeness is never heard on Linux systems. There is no registry creep/bloat. No spyware targetting Linux, no virus threat of the magnitude that faces Windows users. This requires Windows users to stock up on several third-party apps to temporarily rid themselves of these problems. But this is a never-ending battle in Windows.
if I put my sister on a Linux box (besides her saying "wtf is this?"), she'd screw up the install within a week and I'll have to reformat it.
Ah, yes. The "Windows Performance Solution": reformat and reinstall. I have no idea why you think that this would apply to a Linux machine, unless you don't understand Linux at all.
Same with Windows users- the ones who know what they're doing keep their systems clean, and it doesn't tend to slow down.
A Windows user who doesn't maintain their system with registry cleaners, anit-virus/spyware/malware, defrag, etc. will expereince long-term performance issues. A Linux user who performs no maintenance will not have these issues. It isn't a matter of the users. It is the OS defaults, combined with the hazards on the internet (which are 99% Windows malware), plus the quality of administration that makes an OS strong or weak.

Go back to your "What's your favorite Registry Cleaner?" threads. Go find out what slipstreaming methods you can use to make a secure Windows re-install without getting compromized in a matter of minutes. Windows is not the easy performance machine that you think it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
matt95110

Care to explain exactly how can a plain user screw up a linux system?

Its not actually that hard to screw up a system. I had to reinstall Gentoo on my laptop last month because of a script that I ran to clean out some old directories actually deleted some key files (the compiler and some key config settings among other things) and the system was essentially buggered. As root you can do some serious damage to the system, as a regular user you're pretty much limited to screwing up your home directory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

As root you can do some serious damage to the system, as a regular user you're pretty much limited to screwing up your home directory.

I think that this is what he is referring to................ a plain user simply hoses his / her own directory (which is not so easy to do....). The core system (and other accounts) remain intact and undamaged.

Barney

Edited by barneyt
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

I had to reinstall Gentoo on my laptop last month because of a script that I ran to clean out some old directories actually deleted some key files (the compiler and some key config settings among other things) and the system was essentially buggered.

I would say that that is not a typical situation for a linux user.

Link to post
Share on other sites
matt95110

I would say that that is not a typical situation for a linux user.

I've seen some other fairly typical situations. One being accidently filling the root directory and the system not booting properly. The kernel upgrade failing and the system not being able to boot. These are easy problems to fix, but if you're new to Linux you probably wouldn't know where to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.