Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

[Aging Technogeek]

In the middle of page 4, willxtreme describes an environment based on Openbox and includes a rather involved method of installing same on your computer. It is much easier to install Crunchbang Linux.

What willxtreme describes is the basic Crunchbang desktop setup. It is very fast and quite lightweight. The Crunchbang desktop with Firefox open, and Conky running, typically requires less than 175 MB of ram compared to Mint 8 Gnome that uses about 260 -280 MB for the same load.

[yeeshkull]

you'll never hear anyone complain about the price tag of ur a Linux OS, either.

Hope this helps.

comments like this makes Linux sound so cheap, it gives an impression to the newbie world that, oh well what do you expect from an free OS, what you see is what you get, so shut your complaining and also an impression that, well if you want something that performs better, then pay for it i.e. win

Yes, people should appreciate that thousands of people contribute to Linux projects for no pay what-so-ever and the Linux community does not have the monetary resources that publicly traded companies do for R&D and tech support; yet the quality of Linux distro's is on par (if not better) than some commercial operating systems.

[waldo]

you'll never hear anyone complain about the price tag of ur a Linux OS, either.

Hope this helps.

comments like this makes Linux sound so cheap, it gives an impression to the newbie world that, oh well what do you expect from an free OS, what you see is what you get, so shut your complaining and also an impression that, well if you want something that performs better, then pay for it i.e. win

Yes, people should appreciate that thousands of people contribute to Linux projects for no pay what-so-ever and the Linux community does not have the monetary resources that publicly traded companies do for R&D and tech support; yet the quality of Linux distro's is on par (if not better) than some commercial operating systems.

I just read an article within the last week claiming that some very large percent of Linux (maybe 90%) is written by paid programmers, working for companies such as Canonical, Red Hat, and IBM. I wish I could remember the source of this information. Maybe someone else read the same thing and could fill in the source.

[Aevum]

I read a line of it I think somewhere on Linux Mint site, could that be? Perhaps in the news?
I might be wrong..

[ibm450]

I just read an article within the last week claiming that some very large percent of Linux (maybe 90%) is written by paid programmers, working for companies such as Canonical, Red Hat, and IBM. I wish I could remember the source of this information. Maybe someone else read the same thing and could fill in the source.

-o0o-

• if thats the case, could the programmers pay attention to resolving the bloody poor networking side of things as the smb.conf file still needs to be hacked to allow mounting or to see windows shares -- very disappointing side of linux and not out of box or newbie friendly what so ever

[FedoraRefugee]

I just read an article within the last week claiming that some very large percent of Linux (maybe 90%) is written by paid programmers, working for companies such as Canonical, Red Hat, and IBM. I wish I could remember the source of this information. Maybe someone else read the same thing and could fill in the source.

This is true and has been going on for a long time now. This is what I am always driving at in my posts; What we know as Linux is slowly disappearing and being swallowed up by these companies. The GNU GPL will always allow the source code to be free but the reality is the bigger distros are being taken over by corporate pet projects. Why do you think packages like packagekit and pulseaudio are slowly appearing in every distro? Both are solutions in search of a problem, but some RH hack somewhere pulls some strings and...Presto...You are now cursed with the latest in FOSS technology.

The days of two drunk guys in a garage at 3am on a Saturday morning writing code for the next great Linux app are now over. Depending on your perspective (such as the poster above me) this is a good thing. Linux will become standardized and gain direction. It will become much more like Windows and will "just work" for the unwashed masses. The downside will be a loss of freedom. It remains to be seen if a handful of distros such as Arch will retain their independence. I hope so.

[Husse]

I just discovered this topic (by looking at "New posts")
I must say that generally Linux is faster than Windows (Windows 7 excluded - I have not even seen 7 in use so I don't know)
One of the main reasons must be that you don't have to have a antivirus program, a "root kit killer", an anti malware program and a firewall running which is an absolute must in Windows

[ibm450]

I just discovered this topic (by looking at "New posts")
I must say that generally Linux is faster than Windows (Windows 7 excluded - I have not even seen 7 in use so I don't know)
One of the main reasons must be that you don't have to have a antivirus program, a "root kit killer", an anti malware program and a firewall running which is an absolute must in Windows

-o0o-

• thats the only realistic thing that is making Linux much more responsive then windows and that is no AV or spy-ware or some sort of spy ware detection running in the back ground - come on, every one knows that if you don't have any of the back ground services like a AV in the back ground of win 7, w7 runs like the clappers - a known fact and win 7 is so much MORE responsive then linux (especially ubuntu based OS) a hands down known fact !!!!!! .
  
  if you have to add a AV to Linux, or a malware or spy-bot to Linux, like you would in any win based OS, Linux will be far more less responsive then windows, in fact SO much SLOWER.
  
  Linux, especially Ubuntu based is slow enough as it is, just imagine what a AV or some sort of spy-ware would do to the the performance to Linux, i hate to imagine. Linux, ubuntu, is slow enough as it is.

[exploder]

My Wife's computer is running Windows 7 Home Premium x64. I am running Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2 x64, applications launch just as fast and my boot up is a lot faster than hers. My Wife's machine has a 2.6 GHz quad core processor, my machine has a lowly 1.8 GHz core 2 duo. I should mention too that my machine has 3 GB of RAM and my Wife's has 6 GB. To me the Linux system is the better performer here because my system is running just as fast, if not faster and it is doing it with way lower hardware specs.

[ibm450]

My Wife's computer is running Windows 7 Home Premium x64. I am running Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2 x64, applications launch just as fast and my boot up is a lot faster than hers. My Wife's machine has a 2.6 GHz quad core processor, my machine has a lowly 1.8 GHz core 2 duo. I should mention too that my machine has 3 GB of RAM and my Wife's has 6 GB. To me the Linux system is the better performer here because my system is running just as fast, if not faster and it is doing it with way lower hardware specs.

-o0o-

• no dis-respect, but add a AV or some sort of malware protection like windows to linux, you will find linux is or even slower (ubuntu) just as slow or will be just as the same performance as windows....come on...we have enough grunt in todays tech, like quad core etc to handle the most resourceful apps in the background. linux performance just seems to be the same par as a windows fully protected OS...unless you compare windows xp or win 7 to puppy thats a diff story...
  
  what im trying to state here is that, the only thing thats making ubuntu SEEM quicker is that there is no need to load up a AV in the back ground. anti v's are the the thing that slow down any window based OS and with so many services to protect the user / os from hackers or viruses. i bet my left nut that in many years to come (it will take that long for linux to be par with windows) that eventually linux will most prb need some sort of AV or mal-ware protection in the near future when it gets as popular as windows. no doubt that some freak will make linux viruses or malware when, and only when, linux becomes popular and only then will linux performance WILL, WILL, WILL, drop even further (not puppy or DSL or crunch-bang or what ever it's called) will out perform or become a more popular distro the ubuntu...my left nut i bet on that )!!!!!.

[exploder]

I don't know about that because Linux is able to make better use of memory than Windows. Windows 7 is certainly much better than Vista but when I compare it to a Ubuntu based Linux system I don't think Windows 7 has any speed advantage. Linux systems do have IP Tables and App Armor running and that is really all of the protection that is needed. My Wife's machine only has Avira Personal running and it is not much of a resource hog. Windows 7 is fine for people that like Windows, I just don't think it is all that fast.

[ibm450]

I don't know about that because Linux is able to make better use of memory than Windows. Windows 7 is certainly much better than Vista but when I compare it to a Ubuntu based Linux system I don't think Windows 7 has any speed advantage. Linux systems do have IP Tables and App Armor running and that is really all of the protection that is needed. My Wife's machine only has Avira Personal running and it is not much of a resource hog. Windows 7 is fine for people that like Windows, I just don't think it is all that fast.

-o0o-

fair enough dude, and i respect your thoughts and opinion that ubuntu is faster. but there is simply no comparison to win 7 to ubuntu as win 7 is SO much more superior then ubuntu or linux.

the fact is M$ is a clear winner on home desktops, linux is a clear winner on servers -- full stop.

99.9% of the pc desktop users opt for windows simply due to the performance of windows and obviously the available apps for the OS. But come on, what was ubuntu thinking of when the introduced that stupid GRUB 2 splash screen???? it is obvious it takes so much longer to boot up to the desktop because of a stupid looking splash screen that when i compare XP to 9.10, XP loads up SO, SO , SO , SO much quicker on my p4 1.8ghz desktop with network and av ready then bloody 9.10 ubuntu???????????? go figure that.

i couldnt believe the bench mark between the 2 and that xp was far more responsive then 9.10.

ubuntu 10.4 is no different. they havnt even sorted out the net working woes in 10.4....you still have to hack smb.conf to see windows shares...i mean whats happening here....

its just that its getting more and more frustrating with every new release of ubuntu that they are concentrating on stupid things like...wallpaper designs, themes....i mean who gives a flying f*** with wall papers and themes as 99.9% of the time you end up either using your favourite photo shot or family shot as your wall paper...just cant understand that...and the pointless compuziz or the fancy desktop effects...come on..how often is one going to use it and for what prcticality its for is just pointless to think about...if it was that important, you would have seen it in win 7...well you dont (like wobbly windows, gears in cube effects...big woppy dooo)....


and another thing i am finding increasingly frustrating is that even though you plug your head phones in the jack you have to piss fart around in the sound preferences to assign the sound parameters manually to headphones where as in windows you simply just plug your head phones in and away you go, in ubuntu you plug your head phones in and you get both external speaker and headphones on at the same time...i mean confused is with that
?????

[Husse]

Well - every time I have to use Vista (not to talk of XP) I more or less go bananas because it's so slow but I only have single core CPUs I think - not quite sure what's in my wifes laptop though, but it's slow in Vista as is my own
But I think there is an issue with Ubuntu slowing down, or at least it's debated

[Kendall]

99.9% of the pc desktop users opt for windows simply due to the performance of windows and obviously the available apps for the OS.

Actually, most current market share reports for desktop OS use list Windows at around 90%, Apple at around 8.5%, and Linux at a little over 1%. Also, most Windows users that I know don't really seem to care what OS they're using so long as it does what they want it to, reasonably quickly, without them having to mess with it too much. The only people I ever seem to meet who really care about speed benchmarks are either geeks or gamers. As long as it isn't ponderously slow, most people really don't seem to care.

[exploder]

The only people I ever seem to meet who really care about speed benchmarks are either geeks or gamers. As long as it isn't ponderously slow, most people really don't seem to care.

You are absolutely right on this one.

[FedoraRefugee]

99.9% of the pc desktop users opt for windows simply due to the performance of windows and obviously the available apps for the OS.

Actually, most current market share reports for desktop OS use list Windows at around 90%, Apple at around 8.5%, and Linux at a little over 1%. Also, most Windows users that I know don't really seem to care what OS they're using so long as it does what they want it to, reasonably quickly, without them having to mess with it too much. The only people I ever seem to meet who really care about speed benchmarks are either geeks or gamers. As long as it isn't ponderously slow, most people really don't seem to care.

This is my take on it. Windows 7 is more than adequate running on a 3GB RAM dual core HP Laptop. It boots in under 30 seconds from the grub screen (Mint dual boot) to a workable desktop. It never stutters when opening an app and I have yet to bog it down running music, youtube, school videos, and normal day to day work. I have 0 complaints about Vista Ultimate or Windows 7 Ultimate. Likewise, Mint runs just as fast on this same laptop. Is one faster than the other? I honestly do not think so, they are both fast. I suspect Mint 7 XFCE CE boots a tad bit quicker as I start very few services. But really, it is not a noticeable difference.

I think both sides are full of crap myself, this is the silliest argument ever. If Linux is THAT much slower than Windows then something is wrong. If Windows is THAT much slower than Linux then something is wrong. If one is one or two seconds quicker than the other in booting then SO WHAT? Who really cares? If apps do not open as soon as you call on them then I would be looking for a big change somewhere. I have not had that problem since the mid nineties...

I suspect most perceived speed differences are more a case of fanboyism than anything else. Use what works.

[Fluxx]

I couldn't agree more with FedoraRefugee here: this argument at least borders on trolling and flaming. It's full of manure. Actually, manure is so much better, since it is fertile and will grow things. Nothing will come of this.

The file-system organization of Linux is much less convoluted than Windows. Windows is getting better because they are learning from us. They are paring down some cruft, but they will never eliminate it; it's built crufty from the start.

Linux, on the other hand, in moving to a more graphical approach, is picking up cruft. Learning to use the command-line has taught me that the closer you are to the machine, the faster and more powerful you become.

Use Windows if it matters to you that it's graphically faster in some way that you can imagine you can perceive. I can't. But if you're in love with Windows, fine. There's no accounting for taste.

I will abandon Linux when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[Husse]

Fluxx got me thinking a bit - I don't want this topic to be a troll topic
For me Linux is faster than any Windows we have on the family computers - period
That may not be the case for others and then that is valid for them - period

[ibm450]

99.9% of the pc desktop users opt for windows simply due to the performance of windows and obviously the available apps for the OS.

Actually, most current market share reports for desktop OS use list Windows at around 90%, Apple at around 8.5%, and Linux at a little over 1%. Also, most Windows users that I know don't really seem to care what OS they're using so long as it does what they want it to, reasonably quickly, without them having to mess with it too much. The only people I ever seem to meet who really care about speed benchmarks are either geeks or gamers. As long as it isn't ponderously slow, most people really don't seem to care.

-o0o-

• it was a figure of speech - but thanks for the in depth info on the % of OS users.....
  as far as benchmarking, i dont even bother to benchmark linux against windows OS as windows needs AV's and so many background services to be fully protected and i dont even bench mark my windows as i am satisfied with the performance of the machine as it is. my main desktop pc 3GHZ HT 3GB mem with a sporty graphics card that plays the basic games that i want. i even use windows apps on linux as certain apps on linux are too slow for my likings (i.e m$ office compared to openoffice)
  i do agree who cares in 1 sec here or there, but when your on the move or in the mobile world that require on the spot use, these 1 or 2 secs do make a world of a difference.

[exploder]

Fluxx got me thinking a bit - I don't want this topic to be a troll topic
For me Linux is faster than any Windows we have on the family computers - period
That may not be the case for others and then that is valid for them - period

So far it's not a troll topic, just a difference of opinion and it keeps me thinking.

ibm450, benchmarks in Windows are a waste of time anyway because they tend to favor specific hardware. You keep mentioning all of the things needed to protect Windows as a reason for it being slower than Linux. Linux has App Armour and IP Tables running by default so that kind of equals things out in that respect. Linux uses a journaling file system and does not suffer from the fragmentation that Windows does. Think about it, you have to defrag Windows to keep it running fast, Linux does not suffer from this. Windows will slow down as the registry increases in size too, Linux does not use a registry in the same way a Windows system does so as apps are added and removed the system it does not slow down.

Linux will never need the heavy amount of protection that Windows needs because there are so many variables in Linux distributions. Windows is basically the same on every computer it is installed on where Linux varies from distribution to distribution so it would be difficult to create a virus that could cause any real damage. With Linux you do not run with root privileges so the worst that could ever happen would be one profile might be effected, the entire system is not going go down.

How many years will Windows users have to wait for a new release that is any better than Windows 7? Windows 7 is a bug fix release of Vista, it is what Vista was supposed to be. Vista would not run on netbooks because it was a bloated resource hog and Microsoft was loosing market share. Microsoft wants you to forget about Vista the same way they wanted you to forget about Windows ME. Try anything based on Ubuntu 10.04 when it comes out in April and you will see what fast is. I am running a fully updated beta 2 and it is the fastest Linux system I have ever seen.