Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Chat about Linux in general

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby exploder on Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:58 pm

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.
exploder
Level 15
Level 15
 
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Kendall on Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:31 pm

ibm450 wrote:it was a figure of speech - but thanks for the in depth info on the % of OS users.....

Unless it's noted as a figure of speech, then who knows?

ibm450 wrote: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.

Actually, 1 or 2 seconds really doesn't seem to bother most of anyone I know who lives and works out of a mobile environment. What matters is that stability of the service they're using. Literally 80% of what I post to this forum (including this post) is done on the go from a cell phone (a Palm Pre actually), and in that environment Microsoft is barely holding on to any market share they had in the first place.

Even in a mobile environment people aren't diving toward the latest and greatest just for the speed, or the quality of the performance, or any other given factor. If this was the case, then everyone I know would be sporting a Motorola Droid (which is Linux based, mind you) and a laptop with a quad core chip (or at least lusting for that combination). I live in a BOOMING tech hotspot and the market for administrators and coders is hotly contested and fiercely won. One of my upcoming meetings scheduled is to brainstorm for ideas to start globalizing and monetizing services like Glympse, amongst other things. This being said, speed is not the issue, reliability is the issue. If you have a chip with 14 GHz sitting on top of 32 GB of DDR3 RAM beside a 25 TB hard drive all using ANY current OS and you can't even check your email........then your pretty screwed. If you have a substandard OS on a substandard machine that is ALWAYS doing what you need it to, then you can get your work done and never have a hiccup in the process. Who cares if it takes you 5 minutes longer to upload that file, or 15 seconds longer to log in to your Facebook.

My point is that speed is not that much of an issue, not to the vast majority of people who are going to be using whatever it is on their machine, even when you start dealing with the tech end and the mobile end. As long as it works, and it isn't terribly slow, then the speed thing really doesn't matter. More people worry about "what" they're doing more so than they worry about "how fast" it can be done. Admittedly there are exceptions, but exceptions are, in fact, exceptions and don't define the rule as a whole.
User avatar
Kendall
Level 7
Level 7
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:20 pm
Location: Asheville, NC, USA

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Acid_1 on Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:08 pm

I haven't read 3/4 of the comments, only the first four or five. First off, I agree with the OP. My Windows partition is never slowed by virus' and the like. On a fresh install on the Windows x86 or x86_64, FF is faster and more responsive in comparison to x86 or x86_64 Ubuntu/Mint. I was so fed up with it, and was finding that most browsers were either not on par with FF (Konquerer) or just as bad as FF (Opera). I tried Chrome, after I said I never would. And ka-bam! Fast as lightning. Haven't turned back to FF.

As for the HDD being on the outside, inside partition thing. That is very, very old. The slowest drives around are 4x00, most are 5400, and lots are 7200. Plus, explain why it FF is slower on Linux when I have it on partition 1 whilst windows is faster and on partition 4.

As far as Linux being slower overall? I think it's faster. I recently put a copy of Warty Warthog and Breezy Badger in a Virtual Machine, and found that they were snappier than Jaunty or Karmic are. The only difference was in boot times.

If I could start a repo with updated apps, kernel's, and bug-fixes, I would be using Breezy. However, that is not the case, so right now I am experimenting with Netisnt Debian, and seeing how fast I can make that.
Website: Forkwhilefork
User avatar
Acid_1
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Stealing_Lillies on Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:21 pm

I think some people forget some key differences between windows desktops and linux desktops (not server side).

Windows, the better the hardware the better the performance - this is in every instance I have witnessed.

Linux, runs pretty much the same regardless. Obviously, a p3 500mhz with 128mb ram, with a rage pro is going to have problems. I am talking more obvious stuff. I myself cannot see a change of performance with a Core2 2.2ghz with 2 gigs of ram and an ATI 4650 vs a Core2 2.8ghz with 4 gigs of ram with an ATI 4870. In the case of windows there is most defiantly a performance change.

I think a lot of people who have been on linux for years without touching windows or at least touching a windows desktop with real good newer hardware are slightly misguided on the "performance" topic - No offence. I love linux, and mint is without a doubt my fav distro. But "overall performance" - linux unfortunately cannot compete with win7.
Last edited by Stealing_Lillies on Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Stealing_Lillies
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:29 pm

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Acid_1 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:31 pm

I agree with Stealing_Lillies as far as performance increase on new hardware. I had a Pentium M 1.6Ghz (Single Core) x686, 512MB RAM, and the performace increase I had to my new pc was not that much. (Centrino 2 Dual Core 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM).

As far as snappiness goes, Linux's only flaw (imho) is Firefox. Everything blows Windows out of the water. With Chrome I don't have a complaint. I just wish FF was as fast on Linux as it was on Windows. But in literally every other aspect Linux beats Windows.
Website: Forkwhilefork
User avatar
Acid_1
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Stealing_Lillies on Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:55 pm

Acid_1 wrote: With Chrome I don't have a complaint.


There is no doubt about that, chrome is very snappy on linux. FF has their work cut out for them. lol

Like BidBug said in another post - Damn google already knows to much about me! heheheheeee....
Image
User avatar
Stealing_Lillies
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:29 pm

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Husse on Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:59 am

No doubt FF 3.5 is faster and does not lock up when it does not find a connection like FF 3.0 does
Image
Don't fix it if it ain't broken, don't break it if you can't fix it
Husse
Level 21
Level 21
 
Posts: 19703
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:22 am
Location: Near Borås Sweden

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby nukm on Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:30 am

Performance issues are relative. Compilers may be preferential towards Intel chipsets. Individual PCs cannot be a gauge of "speed" unless they are benchmarked, using the same tests.

If benchmarks are lacking, then "speed" is simply whatever your noggin supposes.

With browsers, the ISP has much to do with performance. Some providers have slowing service whereas others have a relatively stable service unaffected by the fluctuation of the user base.

Windows is not faster than Linux unless you can demonstrate that it gets Timmy out of the well faster. Otherwise it is just "barking".

A cluster of 450 Linux PCs can crack a WPA password in less than 10 minutes. How about Windows? :lol:
"Books? Who needs books? They don't taste all that good." The American Connoisseur, circa 2010
"Radiation is good for you.Everyone should eat radiation to be fulfilled. (free translation)...Ann Coulter, circa 2011
nukm
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby FedoraRefugee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:53 pm

nukm wrote:Performance issues are relative. Compilers may be preferential towards Intel chipsets. Individual PCs cannot be a gauge of "speed" unless they are benchmarked, using the same tests.

If benchmarks are lacking, then "speed" is simply whatever your noggin supposes.

With browsers, the ISP has much to do with performance. Some providers have slowing service whereas others have a relatively stable service unaffected by the fluctuation of the user base.

Windows is not faster than Linux unless you can demonstrate that it gets Timmy out of the well faster. Otherwise it is just "barking".

A cluster of 450 Linux PCs can crack a WPA password in less than 10 minutes. How about Windows? :lol:


And vice versa. :D

Even more can be said here though. If you want to even attempt to compare two operating systems then you need to compare apples to apples. Of course a minimal install of Arch using only fluxbox will run circles around a default install of Windows 7. The two do not compare. It is like comparing a semi truck (lorry) to a 2 door coupe. Of course the coupe will be more nimble but I sure wouldn't want to move my home in it!

I suppose Linux has an advantage here because it can be stripped and tailored to specific functions because it is much more modular while Windows is pretty much stuck with how it comes out of the box.

I really like Windows 7 and I stick to my guns that on the same computer if Linux OR Windows runs noticeably faster then there is a problem with your install of the other OS. That said, not much can touch my install of Arch/Fluxbox on my desktop. But again...Apples and oranges...
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Stealing_Lillies on Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:48 pm

"I really like Windows 7 and I stick to my guns that on the same computer if Linux OR Windows runs noticeably faster then there is a problem with your install of the other OS." You could not have said this better. imo

Comparing a custom install to a default one of win7 isn't exactly a fair fight but I see nothing wrong with trying to compare them that way. Hardware is a key factor in using windows - if you have an old turd use linux. If you have new stuff like an i7 with an ATI 5870x2 use Windows because if you don't - you just spent a whole bunch of money for nada. Aslo, Windows can be customized unlike some people think. :) Besides all that - it boils down to a key factor for linux listed below.

Comparing apples to oranges is the case - Linux cannot keep up with Windows for 1 simple reason. Drivers - 99% of the world that uses a computer uses it for graphic reasons. I know of not one person that does not use a graphic oriented application. There is simply now way to compare because linux does not have the capability to compete.
Image
User avatar
Stealing_Lillies
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:29 pm

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Kendall on Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:45 am

Stealing_Lillies wrote:Comparing apples to oranges is the case

I think sometimes it may be comparing apples to oranges, but most often the difference is well beyond that. I will now quote my favorite author, Chuck Klosterman:

I could understand if you said, 'That's like comparing apples and uranium,' or 'That's like comparing apples with baby wolverines,' or 'That's like comparing apples with the early work of Raymond Carver,' or 'That's like comparing apples with hermaphroditic ground sloths.'


Basically there's no unified standard for how any given individual is going to rate any OS versus any other. This is not a bad thing. It's why we have options in the first place.
User avatar
Kendall
Level 7
Level 7
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:20 pm
Location: Asheville, NC, USA

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby FedoraRefugee on Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:18 pm

eh, I replied to Stealing_Lillies yesterday, actually a nice long post, and was just submitting when I lost internet till just now...

I will skip all I had said but I did want to ask about customizing Windows. I think you are full of crap! :D Prove me wrong! How are you going to get Windows 7 anywhere near as stripped as a basic Arch install using Fluxbox as the window manager? You can not come close. You have a hard time even removing IE let alone any part of the actual OS.

I hear they are trying to use a version of Windows 7 that is stripped for embedded stuff, but tell me how I can strip my install of Win 7 Ultimate myself to get anywhere near the speed my Arch/Fluxbox install has.

And that was my point about apples to oranges.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby Stealing_Lillies on Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:33 pm

Kendall wrote:Basically there's no unified standard for how any given individual is going to rate any OS versus any other. This is not a bad thing. It's why we have options in the first place.

I agree with this.


FedoraRefugee wrote:eh, I replied to Stealing_Lillies yesterday, actually a nice long post, and was just submitting when I lost internet till just now...

I will skip all I had said but I did want to ask about customizing Windows. I think you are full of crap! :D Prove me wrong! How are you going to get Windows 7 anywhere near as stripped as a basic Arch install using Fluxbox ( where did i say anything bad about fluxbox or challenge its strippedness or snappiness?) as the window manager? You can not come close (So your photoshop and Command and Conquer game is as snappy as your ability to surf ****? lol). You have a hard time even removing IE let alone any part of the actual OS. (Where did i say anything about IE?)

I hear they are trying to use a version of Windows 7 (answering your own questions in a weird way I guess) that is stripped for embedded stuff, but tell me how I can strip my install of Win 7 Ultimate myself to get anywhere near the speed my Arch/Fluxbox (again where did i challenge fluxbox and its stripped and snappiness? Then again - does your fluxbox rock Mass Effect 2?) some install has.

And that was my point about apples to oranges (apples to oranges I thought was a good way to put it in agreement with you).


My posts are 100% geared towards that i think its a waste of time to try to compete the two about "performance" because it is a fact that linux does not have the "drivers/driver support" that windows does. Is this linux fault? No, not at all. Complaining about windows is a minor issue to me and more attention I believe should be paid to companies like ATI - Nvidia and so on so that they can push a better product to us who use linux. Linux might be free, but that 5870 I paid for was not. Thus I believe they should support at least 1 or 2 products with greater than low performance drivers for linux.

Not sure if that was a rant you just directed at me for my thoughts or not, but it does not really matter I guess. Apples and oranges like you said = similar but still not the same. I hope that clears up any negative thoughts you had about what I was saying.
Last edited by Stealing_Lillies on Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Stealing_Lillies
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:29 pm

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby FedoraRefugee on Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:49 pm

Stealing_Lillies wrote:
Kendall wrote:My posts are 100% geared towards that i think its a waste of time to try to compete the two about "performance" because it is a fact that linux does not have the "drivers/driver support" that windows does. Is this linux fault? No, not at all. Complaining about windows is a minor issue to me and more attention I believe should be paid to companies like ATI - Nvidia and so on.

Not sure if that was rant you just directed at me for my thoughts or not, but it does not really matter I guess. Apples and oranges like you said = similar but still not the same. I hope that clears up any negative thoughts you had about what I was saying.


I had no negative thoughts about what you were saying. In fact, I think it is you who has misinterpreted where I stand on this issue. You could go back and read my previous posts on the matter so I will not reiterate my feelings.

You stated that Windows can be customized, I was merely trying to get you to explain this because in my experience you are fairly limited to what you can actually do with the Windows OS.

I also disagree with your premise on Linux drivers being a disadvantage. I have not found this. In fact, X-Plane runs better in Open-GL in Linux than DirectX 10 in Windows on the same computer. I also appreciate OSS sound on Linux but many are not crazy about this module so they use Alsa. This is great. nVidia has always been awesome with Linux.

But I agree that this is all beside the point anyway, a point I was trying to make with my post(s) in this thread. Both operating systems have strong and weak points, and if you truly wanted to do a benchmark comparison then you need to be very careful what services and modules both are running. A default install of Windows cannot be compared to a Gentoo install that has been tailored to exact hardware. Throw in a very light (and spartan) window manager instead of a full desktop environment and you now see why I equated Windows to a semi truck. This was not meant to be a negative comment though I suspect it was what got your attention. I am happily typing this post on Windows 7 and it is very fast, very solid, and very pleasurable to use. No maintenance or problems with this OS. Likewise, my dual boot of Mint 7 Xfce CE on this same laptop also runs great. I have not benchmarked either and am just judging from "the seat of my pants" but in my opinion neither one is radically faster than the other. They both boot and run with sufficient speed and no lags. What more could you ask? That is all I am saying... :D
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby rfurgy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:13 am

In my opinion, Linux is faster.

What we have to look at is one variable, human involvement. What I mean by this is it all depends on how you set up your PC, all the way from hardware to installing the OS. An example would be doing a hardware upgrade with stuff that has some sketchy Linux compatibility (I'm sure most of us know the effects of bad drivers). Then, if you install Linux in a partition at the end of your drive you may notice a performance drop when compared to Windows. This isn't because Windows is faster, its because the outer most area on the physical drive is the fastest which is usually where Windows ends up because the ease of installing Linux next and how the Grub pretty much sets up the boot process for you. Last would be the classical case of Compiz setting too many desktop effects by default than your video card can handle. This is easily fixed by making sure you aren't taxing your video with all the eye candy.
Image
User avatar
rfurgy
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:37 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby FedoraRefugee on Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:22 am

rfurgy wrote:In my opinion, Linux is faster.


All the time? Or only when Linux is tuned for speed? You just made a blanket statement that is sometimes not true. Case in point, the OP of this thread.

What we have to look at is one variable, human involvement. What I mean by this is it all depends on how you set up your PC, all the way from hardware to installing the OS. An example would be doing a hardware upgrade with stuff that has some sketchy Linux compatibility (I'm sure most of us know the effects of bad drivers).


So Linux is buggy? :wink: It only works on SOME hardware? Hmmmm...Windows might be .00215 seconds slower but at least it WORKS! :D

Then, if you install Linux in a partition at the end of your drive you may notice a performance drop when compared to Windows. This isn't because Windows is faster, its because the outer most area on the physical drive is the fastest which is usually where Windows ends up because the ease of installing Linux next and how the Grub pretty much sets up the boot process for you.


But what if I put Linux on the first partition? (Actually, I usually do.) But do you honestly believe this makes THAT much of a difference? Even so, then is not Windows SOMETIMES faster than Linux? Even if it is only because of the placement on the hard drive?

Last would be the classical case of Compiz setting too many desktop effects by default than your video card can handle. This is easily fixed by making sure you aren't taxing your video with all the eye candy.


What if I have Areo working in Windows? But I see your point. Hey, if you boot from init3 I can almost guarantee you that Linux will run faster than Windows! :roll: But what are you really comparing then?

The only reason I am answering this post is it is almost funny. It is like wishful thinking or something. You state Linux is faster than Windows...But if it is not then here is why...Lol. Does Linux NEED to be faster than Windows? Don't get me wrong, I am not about to argue the point that if I have a basic install of Gentoo or Arch running only Fluxbox it will blow any Windows install away, I do not care where on the hard drive you put it. This is just common sense. The same install will also blow away Fedora or Mint Gnome too. So what? You are comparing apples and oranges! To do a true comparison you would need to have all the variables EXACTLY the same. Same hardware. Only OS on the HD. You would have to be careful about what apps you use and what is installed and what DE you use in Linux.

Because of this I stand by what I have been saying in here: This is a stupid thread! :lol: It is like arguing if a Ford or a Chevy is faster on the basis of how long it takes to drive from Fl to NY. The truth of the matter is it would take so many hours for ANYONE in ANY car to make this drive. As long as your car is in this ballpark range then nothing else even matters. I run Windows 7. It is plenty fast. Just as fast as any of my Mint installs. I also run Arch with Fluxbox. There is no comparison...To Windows OR Mint! Arch/Fluxbox blows most anything away. Except maybe Gentoo/Fluxbox. But that .00001 second difference really means little to me!
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby rfurgy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:49 am

I can see where you're coming from.
FedoraRefugee wrote:
All the time? Or only when Linux is tuned for speed? You just made a blanket statement that is sometimes not true. Case in point, the OP of this thread.

I say Linux is faster because I can run any 64 bit distro on the second partition of my hard drive with better performance than my 64 bit Windows installed on the first partition.
So Linux is buggy? :wink: It only works on SOME hardware? Hmmmm...Windows might be .00215 seconds slower but at least it WORKS! :D

No more buggy than Windows. Matter of fact I have a PC here that Windows 7 64 bit has been bricking itself on for the past couple days, and still performs slower than Linux Mint 8 64 bit even though W7 is in the 1st partition and both were fresh installs on the same day. Yet Mint continued to run without a hitch. Don't get me wrong, W7 is by far the best M$ O$ I've seen yet. Except the unwanted 100 mb primary partition it forces onto your hard drive there by reducing your # of total partitions you can create.
But what if I put Linux on the first partition? (Actually, I usually do.) But do you honestly believe this makes THAT much of a difference? Even so, then is not Windows SOMETIMES faster than Linux? Even if it is only because of the placement on the hard drive?

I think the majority of people checking out or installing Linux for the first time will end up with it somewhere towards the end of the drive due to the defaults of the partitioner during installation. Whether they are doing a fresh install of both or migrating from Windows. It's known to just work much easier installing Linux after Windows because the Windows Boot Loader just doesn't want to share and be friends. Unfortunately placement on the drive can make a difference, small and great. Google hard drive short stroking once.
The only reason I am answering this post is it is almost funny. It is like wishful thinking or something. You state Linux is faster than Windows...But if it is not then here is why...Lol. Does Linux NEED to be faster than Windows?

Glad I could amuse you, at least I'm good for something :lol: . I was simply trying to give scenarios that I've seen first hand impact the performance in a bad way. And Linux doesn't NEED to be faster, IT JUST IS!
To do a true comparison you would need to have all the variables EXACTLY the same. Same hardware. Only OS on the HD. You would have to be careful about what apps you use and what is installed and what DE you use in Linux.

How about Windows and Mint dual boot on same system with 500 GB HDD. For this example, we will give Mint the benefit of the doubt and install it on the second partition, 50 for Windows followed by 50 for Mint. Within the first 100 GB the performance difference will be minimal but we'll still put the disadvantage to Mint. Then go into both of the OS's and run a stability test to peg out the CPU at 100% and try loading similar programs like Firefox. Although, Windows should be made to open IE just because that is the native browser. Which ever OS at that point is responding faster, is the faster OS.
Because of this I stand by what I have been saying in here: This is a stupid thread!

Depends on how you look at it. Seems to me this thread started off as a legitimate question why this person was seeing a difference in performance that favoured Windows. I'd want to know as well if I'm trying to get others interested in Linux.
It is like arguing if a Ford or a Chevy is faster on the basis of how long it takes to drive from Fl to NY. The truth of the matter is it would take so many hours for ANYONE in ANY car to make this drive. As long as your car is in this ballpark range then nothing else even matters.

You're right that when they are both performing well and that close it doesn't matter. But as for the Ford or Chevy, I say Toyota J/K :lol: , but if the cars were close in horsepower it would fall on the driver (assuming nothing goes mechanically wrong). Hense my statement about having to look at the Human variable in the equation. These PCs don't build themselves and the OS's don't install themselves so the only differences are those which occur due to the choices we make.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue. Just trying to bring to light some things that can cause a Linux install to run slower than Windows.
Never used Arch/Fluxbox, how those workin out for ya? What do you like most about them?
Image
User avatar
rfurgy
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:37 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby FedoraRefugee on Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:06 pm

rfurgy wrote: But as for the Ford or Chevy, I say Toyota J/K :lol:


My wife owns a 2008 Prius and I own a 2008 Tacoma. It is ashame about all the recent problems but Toyota has always built a top quality car. I would not trade my $15,000 base truck on a $30,000 optioned out Dodge Ram if someone even gave me the chance at an even swap. Likewise, we bought the Prius simply because my wife drives around the entire state of Florida for her job. I get so much "it aint green" crap, we don't care about any of that. The fact is that car gets 50mpg, gas is much cheaper than diesel, and it is a comfortable car to drive. We love it. We will stick with Toyota.

Besides, if we ever get pulled over for speeding we now have an excuse... :roll: :lol:

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue. Just trying to bring to light some things that can cause a Linux install to run slower than Windows.
Never used Arch/Fluxbox, how those workin out for ya? What do you like most about them?


eh, go ahead and argue! :D I see no difference between Mint 7 Xfce and Windows 7 Ultimate both 32 bit. Could one be faster? Maybe. But seat of the pants I see no difference. I have no complaints with either.

Arch is simply awesome. It is the new Gentoo. :D Seriously, I know a lot of people in both this forum and in the Fedora forum who went with Arch. It is very well documented with clear instructions on how to build a tailor made system with just what you want and no excess junk. It is fun and painless to build as long as you follow the directions and when finished you have a very static, dependable system that does not have the bloat and stupid new components like PulseAudio. (unless you want to install it, of course). I use Mint when I want a brainless, fast, out of the box install that can be slapped on any computer. I use Arch on my work computer and my big desktop rig.

Fluxbox is another story. It aint for everyone. I usually use Xfce on Linux boxes that I use a lot. Fluxbox is a bit more manual. I really like the keyboard shortcuts and being a strong keyboard user I find I am a lot faster and more productive without all the mouse crap. Also, my needs on these computers is much simpler than say my laptop where I watch DVDs, DL and burn things, use a lot of automounted things, and generally want a fuller DE.

Both are definitely worth looking at, even if you decide they are not for you.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby rfurgy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:35 am

We will stick with Toyota.

Same here. I own a 1987 Toyota Supra and wouldn't trade it for a Porsche. Unfortunately though it's very difficult to go the speed limit in my Toyota. :shock:
Arch is simply awesome. It is the new Gentoo. :D Seriously, I know a lot of people in both this forum and in the Fedora forum who went with Arch.

Reason I'm asking is I've got some low end machines I build and run. Some times light weight distros are the only thing I can squeak in so I'm all for um. I've done a few Xubuntu systems. Not to bad, much lighter than its big sister, but even Xubuntu has a hard time running on a 500 MHz CPU.

Another reason I ask is becaus I just got into Folding@Home. I've been using my desktop to run the new Linux SMP Fah6.29 client but I have some older PCs to toy around with. I've just been doing some different running environments to see what kind of performance I can get out of them. So far the best I managed to get was by booting into Ubuntu Server with no desktop or command prompt in recovery mode on a normal Ubuntu install. So I could definitely take a look at Arch. Matter of fact I'll go check it out as soon as I'm done posting this.

Thanks for the replies by the way. :)
Image
User avatar
rfurgy
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:37 am

Re: Why is Linux a bit slower than windows

Postby factotum218 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:37 am

For those who say a Mac is overpriced might not have had the same luck I have.

I'm still running my dual 800mHz Powermac G4 as I did back in 2002. It's what keeps Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign if I have to bring my work home with me.

Otherwise it sits there and pulsates it's power button at me. I think it knows its end is nigh. But still, almost 8 years on one system. Even after that it's getting a headless Debian treatment to lay about and store/stream and let me break things related to php and javascript. My new little batting cage.

It's the longest I've ever gone, but I'm a little concerned about pulling that off a gain with one of the new iMacs. Think it could get me another eight years?
factotum218
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:32 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Chat about Linux

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests