Speed of Ubuntu vs. Windows XP

[smorton]

Woud the latest desktop version of Ubuntu run faster than Windows, if all things were as equal as you could make them?

Thanks

SM

[dcraven]

This is impossible to answer accurately. They are two completely different animals.

I'll say yes.

~djc

[LesterPalooza]

You can try doing Benchmarks. What are your criterion of comparison? Game FPS? Flash player FPS?

[LewRockwell]

Woud the latest desktop version of Ubuntu run faster than Windows, if all things were as equal as you could make them?

Thanks

SM

define "equal"?

we see multitudes of bloated and bogged-down windoze systems all the time

(you cannot imagine the click-monsters that accept every scrap of crap from the interwebs...aaaaarrrrrggggghhhh!?!)

"a stick is only as sharp as the whittler chooses"

[Simian Man]

A default XP install from scratch would run faster than a default install of Ubuntu (XP is almost ten years old you know). However, if you use each install for about a year, I'd guess that XP would have slowed considerably while Linux would still be running just as strong.

Also you can have Linux systems that would be faster than a fresh XP - but not a modern, full-featured one like the default Ubuntu setup.

This is just my experience.

[LewRockwell]

A default XP install from scratch would run faster than a default install of Ubuntu (XP is almost ten years old you know). However, if you use each install for about a year, I'd guess that XP would have slowed considerably while Linux would still be running just as strong.

Also you can have Linux systems that would be faster than a fresh XP - but not a modern, full-featured one like the default Ubuntu setup.

This is just my experience.

of course, the vast majority of users just require a working browser and possibly an email client

and certainly not the bloatware we have all around us today

[A_M_S]

In my experience, XP will get slower after some months of continuous use.

When we install and uninstall applications continuously Ubuntu resists a lot better than XP.

[Therion]

Multiple applications benchmarking: Ubuntu v. WinXP: http://mssaleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/ubuntu-804-lts-vs-windows-xp-sp3-application-performance-benchmark/

Benching Ubuntu v. WinVista: http://www.crn.com/software/211800390;jsessionid=X1HP1GFAMPTCEQSNDLRSKHSCJUNN2 JVN

Benchmarked: Ubuntu v. Vista v. Windows 7: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

[caravel]

Interesting, so the decreased boot time between 8.10 and 9.04 is only 2 seconds...

[Therion]

Interesting, so the decreased boot time between 8.10 and 9.04 is only 2 seconds...
I'm a little confused by what I read, having read all the articles fairly closely, but such is the nature of benchmarking I think. Besides, from the last benching link you get this result:Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext4 dropped by 8 seconds, which is a fair improvement.
So yeah... I dunno.

[aysiu]

It really depends.

On older hardware, particularly with less RAM, Windows XP will perform better than vanilla Ubuntu. You can, of course, tweak Ubuntu to run well on low-RAM systems (especially if you get rid of Gnome and replace it with something like IceWM or OpenBox), but then again you can also use nLite to strip Windows of a lot of bloat, too.

On newer hardware, I think the latest (meaning 9.04) Ubuntu will definitely outperform XP on the same hardware.

In previous versions, I don't think there was a clear winner. 9.04 definitely has amped up the speed of Ubuntu in terms of boot times and general responsiveness.

[linsux]

I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. It might be more fair to compare Ubuntu's performance with Vista, since it's also a newer OS. XP is 8 years old and quite simply takes less resources to run smoothly.

[~sHyLoCk~]

Depends on what application you are running.
I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. It might be more fair to compare Ubuntu's performance with Vista, since it's also a newer OS. XP is 8 years old and quite simply takes less resources to run smoothly.

XP is the best that Microsoft could come up with no doubt, however I would disagree with the fact that it is faster and takes less resources than any modern Linux distros. For example-> Just use Arch Linux and see the performance + boot time! Gentoo is another stable and reliable do-it-yourself distro which gives you better performance than XP. The reason I say this is because it's my personal experience, I'm not being biased here but have actually tried them out and felt the difference.

[Therion]

I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. It might be more fair to compare Ubuntu's performance with Vista, since it's also a newer OS. XP is 8 years old and quite simply takes less resources to run smoothly.
Some of the benchmarks would like to have a word with you...

http://www.osnews.com/img/19769/1.png

The methodology of the test appears to be fairly sound. The tests were performed on the exact same machine, except for one tiny detail: Windows XP was installed on a SATA disk, while Ubuntu had to settle for an ATA one. Interestingly, Ubuntu still outperformed Windows XP on IO intensive tasks.

[Trebaruna]

Does it matter? All things are not equal, so the speed is really quite irrelevant compared to what you need or want to do with your OS. Do you need/want Windows? Go with Windows. Do you need/want Linux? Use Linux.
If neither is really the case then you need to ask yourself what else you want out of your computer. Raw speed doesn't mean anything when that speed can't be put to good use for you.

Also, if it's speed you need, do not use GNOME/KDE.

[linsux]

Depends on what application you are running.


XP is the best that Microsoft could come up with no doubt, however I would disagree with the fact that it is faster and takes less resources than any modern Linux distros. For example-> Just use Arch Linux and see the performance + boot time! Gentoo is another stable and reliable do-it-yourself distro which gives you better performance than XP. The reason I say this is because it's my personal experience, I'm not being biased here but have actually tried them out and felt the difference.

If you re-read my post, you'll see I said "I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's", by that I meant a full installation of Ubuntu or Fedora. Not lightweight/do it yourselfer.


Some of the benchmarks would like to have a word with you...

http://www.osnews.com/img/19769/1.png

I looked through those. The fact remains, Ubuntu is still more clunky and opens applications slower than XP on my machine, it consumes more CPU and eats a little more ram.

[MaxIBoy]

The received wisdom is that XP is faster than Ubuntu out-of-the-box, but once you install antivirus, firewalls, etc, it is slower. This may or may not be true anymore.

[linsux]

The received wisdom is that XP is faster than Ubuntu out-of-the-box, but once you install antivirus, firewalls, etc, it is slower.

XP comes with a built in firewall these days. I never install AV or anything like that, so I don't have to worry about it dragging my XP install down.

[Therion]

Ubuntu is still more clunky and opens applications slower than XP on my machine...
Well, well, well... That's QUITE a different statement than ...there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. now, isn't it?

It must be killing you but the facts bear out that a fully featured Linux distro CAN and DOES keep pace with Windows, and frequently mops up the floor with them. I grant you there's some give and take - no single OS wins hands down, every time - but if you refuse to admit that Linux can and does hold it's own against XP, Vista & '7 (and outright crushes them at some turns) then you're simply deluding yourself.

[MaxIBoy]

XP comes with a built in firewall these days. I never install AV or anything like that, so I don't have to worry about it dragging my XP install down.Without AV? Yeah, you kinda do. Unless of course you are very, very careful. I, personally, don't have time for that kind of caution. :) But hey, whatever works for you.

[caravel]

A firewall/Nat router service installed on the local machine is not enough to make XP secure. The only reason why XP, and indeed Vista, seems secure these days is due to the high volume of users running behind hardware based NAT routers with a built in firewall of some kind (which usually have Linux based firmware).

[linsux]

I must be killing you but the facts bear out that a fully featured Linux distro CAN and DOES keep pace with Windows, and frequently mops up the floor with them. I grant you there's some give and take - no single OS wins hands down, every time - but if you refuse to admit that Linux can and does hold it's own against XP, Vista & '7 (and outright crushes them at some turns) then you're simply deluding yourself.

I gave an opinion. Most people who use Ubuntu with 512MB of ram would tend to agree, just ask. There's a reason why there's lightweight versions of Ubuntu and Linux. I wouldn't go as far to say that I'm refusing to admit to anything, Linux has a better scheduler, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Linux still runs slower for me and many other hardware challenged users. You refuse to admit that I might be right, does that make you as thick headed as me? Also, those benchies were done on a computer with "RAM: 2GB Dual Channel DDR2-6400 (800)".

So I have little interest in fighting some pointless argument with you, you're obviously too much of a fanboy to acknowledge my opinion anyway.

[~sHyLoCk~]

If you re-read my post, you'll see I said "I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's", by that I meant a full installation of Ubuntu or Fedora. Not lightweight/do it yourselfer.

Can you please tell me under which circumstances did you find Ubuntu slow? If you say all the time, then i'd say you probably have not installed it correctly! Do a reinstall and then if things go bad you can go on with your Ihatelinux campaign.

Hoping for the best.

Cheers

[linsux]

Can you please tell me under which circumstances did you find Ubuntu slow? If you say all the time, then i'd say you probably have not installed it correctly! Do a reinstall and then if things go bad you can go on with your Ihatelinux campaign.

Hoping for the best.

Cheers

I doubt that I didn't install it correctly. Also, I don't hate Linux, I've been using it for 12+ years.

[jimmy the saint]

XP comes with a built in firewall these days. I never install AV or anything like that, so I don't have to worry about it dragging my XP install down.

I hate to be a naysayer, but the built in windows firewall is one way only and not very configurable. It is certainly no match for a good aftermarket firewall. here is a pretty simplified explanation of its shortcomings and why it is not really sufficient, except to provide a "false sense of security."
http://netsecurity.about.com/od/firewalls/a/aa081804b.htm

Also, running windows without AV is kind of like making a red-light-district run without packing rubbers. You can do it, but don't expect to last long without picking up a few friends for life.

[jimmy the saint]

I doubt that I didn't install it correctly. Also, I don't hate Linux, I've been using it for 12+ years.

Interesting name for someone who doesn't hate linux or doesn't think is sucks. You'll have to forgive those of us who misinterpret the name.

Edit: The disclaimer in the sig is most clarifying!

[linsux]

Interesting name for someone who doesn't hate linux or doesn't think is sucks. You'll have to forgive those of us who misinterpret the name.

I just put a disclaimer in my Sig :)

[gjoellee]

When it comes to installing software Windows has a lot to learn.
You install GIMP in like 2 seconds when you don't install it from source in Linux, but in Windows the installation of GIMP takes about 1 minute on my computer.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP.

I gave an opinion. Most people who use Ubuntu with 512MB of ram would tend to agree, just ask. There's a reason why there's lightweight versions of Ubuntu and Linux. I wouldn't go as far to say that I'm refusing to admit to anything, Linux has a better scheduler, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Linux still runs slower for me and many other hardware challenged users. You refuse to admit that I might be right, does that make you as thick headed as me? Also, those benchies were done on a computer with "RAM: 2GB Dual Channel DDR2-6400 (800)".

are you saying that xp runs faster than ubuntu with 512mb of ram, but slower than ubuntu with 2gb of ram?

as far as refusing to admit you're right, you really haven't provided anything but anecdotal, fall off a donkey in the rain evidence to back up your claim. are there no benchmarks available?

[irv]

I know this is not a direct answer to the speed question with XP and Ubuntu, but I thought I would just post it here seeing I did this check.
I have a Dell Inspiron 1521 running a duel boot with Ubuntu 9.04 and Vista. Vista is setup on a NTFS partition and Ubuntu on a Ext4 partition. I checked boot-up and shut-down times on both and this is what I found.
When booting into Vista it took 1 minute and 28 seconds from power on to full boot. The Ubuntu took 20 seconds.
Shutdown on Vista took the same time as boot-up, and Ubuntu did the same as it's boot-up. (20 seconds). I think the difference was the type of partitioning. Also giving Vista did load a few more app's at boot-up and shutdown I would take off about 15 to 20 seconds from the time for Vista.
I never check app's run time on both, but I could do that if someone would like to see the results. Just from using both, I feel they would be close to the same.
I have had to use IE in Vista a few times, but the boot time for that app is so slow, I use firefox as much as possible.
Another thing I found out about IE:
I used it to watch Netflix movies and I could not get through a 2 hour movie without running out of memory, so I upgraded my laptop from 2GB to 4GB and I still ran out of memory. When I started using firefox to watch movies, this does not happen. The problem is IE, it does not release the memory until you shut it off. Bad programing.
I hope this information will help someone.
Irv

[linsux]

are you saying that xp runs faster than ubuntu with 512mb of ram, but slower than ubuntu with 2gb of ram?

Yeah, that sounds sort of stupid. But then again, blindly claiming that a 8 year old OS is and always will be slower than the latest Ubuntu is pretty stupid, too. Install Fedora Core 2 and compare that to XP.


as far as refusing to admit you're right, you really haven't provided anything but anecdotal, fall off a donkey in the rain evidence to back up your claim.

To be fair, using benchmarks from a random blog isn't exactly much evidence to back any claim. We know that Firefox is slower on Linux than Windows (in stable releases, at least), so that would be more noticeable with a slower computer, right? The problem here is, nobody is being unbiased, that's why this post doesn't belong on this forum, because it's full of people who would rather believe that Ubuntu is faster even if it isn't.

You can take my post with a grain of salt, I never gave any proof to backup my post, though I feel that Ubuntu runs about as fast as Vista on my PC. XP generally feels more snappy than modern Linux distro's, this started happening around 2006 for me.

are there no benchmarks available?

Silly fool! Linux isn't popular enough to be benchmarked!

[chucky chuckaluck]

Yeah, that sounds sort of stupid. But then again, blindly claiming that a 8 year old OS is and always will be slower than the latest Ubuntu is pretty stupid, too. Install Fedora Core 2 and compare that to XP.

there was at least an attempt to provide some benchmarks to back up the claim and they weren't hands down wins for ubuntu in all catagories. that's hardly blind claiming. it's certainly a better effort than "because i think so".

To be fair, using benchmarks from a random blog isn't exactly much evidence to back any claim. We know that Firefox is slower on Linux than Windows (in stable releases, at least), so that would be more noticeable with a slower computer, right? The problem here is, nobody is being unbiased, that's why this post doesn't belong on this forum, because it's full of people who would rather believe that Ubuntu is faster even if it isn't.

and you'd rather believe that ubuntu is slower than everything, at least that's the impression i'm under.

You can take my post with a grain of salt, I never gave any proof to backup my post, though I feel that Ubuntu runs about as fast as Vista on my PC. XP generally feels more snappy than modern Linux distro's, this started happening around 2006 for me.

maybe you could provide some benchmarks of your own (even have them notarized, giving them an air of authenticity).

[linsux]

there was at least an attempt to provide some benchmarks to back up the claim and they weren't hands down wins for ubuntu in all catagories. that's hardly blind claiming. it's certainly a better effort than "because i think so".

Right, just because one person posted benchmarks validates all the other blind claims as to what's better.

and you'd rather believe that ubuntu is slower than everything, at least that's the impression i'm under.

Where did I say I wasn't biased?

maybe you could provide some benchmarks of your own (even have them notarized, giving them an air of authenticity).

Well, maybe you should do that too, because you haven't given me any reason as to how I'm wrong, what makes your beliefs justified?

[chucky chuckaluck]

Right, just because one person posted benchmarks validates all the other blind claims as to what's better.

would you have prefered everyone posting the same benchmarks? their anecdotal claims are no less valid than yours, and no more blind.

Where did I say I wasn't biased?

your bias is not better than their's.

Well, maybe you should do that too, because you haven't given me any reason as to how I'm wrong, what makes your beliefs justified?

i made no claims (i actually don't care which is faster). you made the claim. you back it up. thus far, you showed less support for your claim than those taking the opposing viewpoint showed for their's.

[gymophett]

I did benchmarks on both on the same laptop.
Short answer: Ubuntu is faster than Windows XP. :)

[linsux]

would you have prefered
your bias is not better than their's.


Again, I didn't say that my bias was better than theirs.


i made no claims (i actually don't care which is faster). you made the claim. you back it up. thus far, you showed less support for your claim than those taking the opposing viewpoint showed for their's.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/19769 Read through the comments, there's some interesting conversation over the benchmarks.

[linsux]

i made no claims (i actually don't care which is faster). you made the claim. you back it up. thus far, you showed less support for your claim than those taking the opposing viewpoint showed for their's.

You can't challenge someone's claims without providing proof of why they're wrong. At least, that's kind of what you're saying to me about my post.

[chucky chuckaluck]

You can't challenge someone's claims without providing proof of why they're wrong. At least, that's kind of what you're saying to me about my post.

i'm not challenging your claim. you might even be right, but we'll never know as your anecdotal claim is not enough to raise an eyebrow. so, i'm not saying "no, you're wrong!", i'm just saying 'meh'.

[0per4t0r]

It depends on the computer and the processor. Windows runs better on Intel Processors than AMD most of the time, and ubuntu runs fast on both. Overall, I'd say ubuntu would run faster than XP, because it's less bloated, and takes up less memory.

[CJ Master]

A default XP install from scratch would run faster than a default install of Ubuntu (XP is almost ten years old you know). However, if you use each install for about a year, I'd guess that XP would have slowed considerably while Linux would still be running just as strong.

Also you can have Linux systems that would be faster than a fresh XP - but not a modern, full-featured one like the default Ubuntu setup.

This is just my experience.

Modern and full-featured does not mean slow. Arch Linux/Gentoo anyone? Gnome loads with three seconds with a whole slew of applications. I boot in 15 seconds. I'm not sure why Ubuntu takes so long...

[Bios Element]

Oh enough already, linsux go use xp and have fun with it. Everyone else, let linsux use XP and think it's faster. Does it really matter if it actually is or isn't? Use what works.

[gymophett]

I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. It might be more fair to compare Ubuntu's performance with Vista, since it's also a newer OS. XP is 8 years old and quite simply takes less resources to run smoothly.

That was the point. IF THEY HAVE THE SAME FEATURES, which is faster? Windows XP runs like a drag on my brother 512MB laptop, and Ubuntu is so speedy.
If your looking for speed go with a different distro. I state facts, not favouritism. Please change your screen name, it is offending.
:)

[chucky chuckaluck]

Please change your screen name, it is offending.
:)

now, now... let the poor, little fella have his fun.

[gymophett]

now, now... let the poor, little fella have his fun.

Well I guess he should. He has nothing better to do. :)

[H2SO_four]

apples and oranges

[CJ Master]

That was the point. IF THEY HAVE THE SAME FEATURES, which is faster? Windows XP runs like a drag on my brother 512MB laptop, and Ubuntu is so speedy.
If your looking for speed go with a different distro. I state facts, not favouritism. Please change your screen name, it is offending.
:)

Yes, and I recall people saying "Windows sucks." That's offending, but hey, why do we care? It's not offending to us. Interesting double standards we have.

[gymophett]

Yes, and I recall people saying "Windows sucks." That's offending, but hey, why do we care? It's not offending to us. Interesting double standards we have.

Yes, I do recall that too. I don't like that either.

[starcannon]

I have 512MB of Ram and I can tell you that there's no way that modern, full feature Linux distro's are as fast as XP. Maybe 6 years ago, but not today. It might be more fair to compare Ubuntu's performance with Vista, since it's also a newer OS. XP is 8 years old and quite simply takes less resources to run smoothly.

I find my self shocked, and amazed; I agree with linsux.

I am now going to nail my doors and windows shut so that when the cats and dogs living in harmony begins, there will be no way for me to be disturbed by it.

[Blacklightbulb]

I'll take speed as the time it takes for normal desktop use i.e. booting time, copying software, processing power need for each OS...etc

Ubuntu is much faster on my small old rig because I don't need anti-malware which is quite a load on my AMD. Also I think linux kernel is better programmed and more efficient than XP. Also xp tends to slow down due to various conflicts and problems with files...etc. Ubuntu doesn't.

[Blacklightbulb]

OK something else. From personal experience there was a big difference when running Linux and XP.
Ubuntu, Gentoo, Arch, and Zenwalk all booted faster and performed better on my rig. I don't think my rig is new either with ~2.12 GHZ and ~1200MB.

I had one friend though who claimed that on his 2001 rig Ubuntu was slower than XP.

Anyway explian tell us Linsux: Which is your preferred OS?

Windows
Linux
BSD
Other UNIX derieved OS

or

I hope not

MAC OSX?

[irv]

I have been in other threads where Linsux has got involved, and it seem in those threads and in this one when he start to cut on Linux the subject changes and turns into an argument with him and it start to move away from the main subject.
I believe he is an hindrance more that a help on this forum. He is a activist against all Linux users. And I get this from all his posts. I don’t only want him to change his name, but if his options are going to hinder those that need help, then maybe he should just bow out.
Now let’s get back on with the discussion.