I can see where you're coming from.
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?
It only works on SOME hardware? Hmmmm...Windows might be .00215 seconds slower but at least it WORKS!
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
. 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
, 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?