I love 10.04, but why does Windows 7 feel so much faster ?

[ubuwatson]

I love 10.04, once again Ubuntu devs have done a wonderful job, and I left Windows years back and have been happy ever since. That being said I installed Windows 7 on my netbook a few months back and performance wise everything feels 'snappier'. Ubuntu seems a bit 'sluggish' in comparison. I really want to stay with Linux, but Microsoft has made some great strides with it's new OS. Resources, Battery Life and overall performance on an ATOM netbook are nothing short of amazing, considering Microsoft has always been a known for being a 'resource hog'. So honestly, putting bias and fanboyism aside, what gives ?

[WinterRain]

On some computers, linux will be faster than windows, and vice versa. That's just the way it is. Maybe you could try a lighter distro.

[Calmor]

I found Vista slower, but XP comparable, and Windows 7 a little faster than Ubuntu on all of the hardware I've tried. My reasons for sticking with Ubuntu anyway vary; I like not being encumbered by someone else's vision on how my desktop should look, act, and feel... I like some of the OSS solutions to my problems (though arguably there are a few commercial software packages I can't live without too, so virtualization it is for me). I like this community. I like that by and large, my stuff just works. I like being able to tinker with anything from the kernel to the the GUI menus if I so desire.

Thus, I stay. Your reason may vary. Faster is subject to change. Open isn't likely to do so any time soon.

[AlanR8]

Worked on an Acer net book the other day with XP. It felt sloooooooooooooow compared to my Compaq Mini with Lucid installed.

[ubuwatson]

I appreciate certain aspects of both systems. Windows feels more polished, but then again Ubuntu feels more stable and consistent in performance (once in a while Windows 7 will slow down for some unknown reason). Personally, the geek in me loves Ubuntu, the business user likes Windows 7.

I will say one thing, Windows XP running inside of Virutalbox in Ubuntu 10.04 runs superbly fast considering it's only a dual core Atom processor.

[jrothwell97]

Sometimes things run faster, sometimes things run slower. Even on my very old machine (now pining for the fjords), Windows 7 was quite a touch snappier than Ubuntu when I had the RC installed. I can only assume this is due to the fact it's basically a refined Vista with a lot of honing done under the hood, and they've made some heavy tweaks to the interface and the API.

[ubuwatson]

Sometimes things run faster, sometimes things run slower. Even on my very old machine (now pining for the fjords), Windows 7 was quite a touch snappier than Ubuntu when I had the RC installed. I can only assume this is due to the fact it's basically a refined Vista with a lot of honing done under the hood, and they've made some heavy tweaks to the interface and the API.

To be fair, your right, it does depend on the intended operation. Sometimes Windows feels faster, other times Ubuntu does. I believe Nautilus may be the culprit most of the time.

[Ms_Angel_D]

Moved from T&E to the cafe to avoid Thread Closure.

[BigCityCat]

I found Vista slower, but XP comparable, and Windows 7 a little faster than Ubuntu on all of the hardware I've tried. My reasons for sticking with Ubuntu anyway vary; I like not being encumbered by someone else's vision on how my desktop should look, act, and feel... I like some of the OSS solutions to my problems (though arguably there are a few commercial software packages I can't live without too, so virtualization it is for me). I like this community. I like that by and large, my stuff just works. I like being able to tinker with anything from the kernel to the the GUI menus if I so desire.

Thus, I stay. Your reason may vary. Faster is subject to change. Open isn't likely to do so any time soon.

You can use custom themes. These are two different ones I use.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk14/bigcitycat/Image1-1.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk14/bigcitycat/DESK1.jpg

[Linuxforall]

Tried both Win7 and Lucid, both x64 on variety of desktop and laptops, on Intel graphic laptop Win7 had an edge in some aspects, on Nvidia and ATI graphics, Lucid blasted Win7 out in every term, app load, boot time, shut down time, Win7 when loaded with anti virus starts getting laggy.

[chessnerd]

Worked on an Acer net book the other day with XP. It felt sloooooooooooooow compared to my Compaq Mini with Lucid installed.

I'm guessing this wasn't your computer.

A properly maintained version of Windows (XP, 7, and even Vista) is usually quite quick.

My aunt was running Windows XP on her computer and it was ridiculously slow, despite decent specs, and was almost out of hard drive space. So, I went in and walked her through removing her unused applications (some over 5 years old), disabling unnecessary start-up programs (over 3/4 weren't needed), updating her software to the latest versions, defragmenting her hard drive, cleaning up the registry, and removing old files. Then, it ran much faster and had a lot more hard-drive space. This really impressed her, my father, and everyone else who used it.

I have similar stories about other computers I've worked with. Windows installs just needs maintanance every few months, as do Linux, OS X, BSD, and other systems. The problem is, most people are unsure of how to perform these tune-ups.

[ssj6akshat]

Choose the one that works for you

/thread

[SunnyRabbiera]

No 7 is slower for me, Ubuntu is a friggin speed demon in comparison.
Plus Ubuntu does fare much better after extended use

[Khakilang]

I don't like Window from any version because of the EULA and also I have to install Anti virus, spyware and malware which is an extra cost to me. Even though they maybe faster but not super fast. The only reason I use Window is because of gaming, wait a minute I have no reason at all. Linux have Wine.
:guitar:

[Ylon]

You did choose the right word "feel". That's all MS did work on.

Big part of PC resource, the "very high" priority in all windows OS are given to: Graphic+Mouse pointer. This give a "psycologic" feel of quickness.. of course, the CPU power and reading speed (hardware) are the same with Ubuntu and Windows.

System like Ubuntu tried to share as best possible resources in order to make process make their job as quickies possible (or freeze them, before the system hang up).

When a system hangup, Windows is the first one to make it you know.. since it's priority to deal with them is the Monitor. The cost, of course, is that the hangup will during more since Windows waste the time take for resolve a problem... just for let you know about it.


Also...
The latest hardware driver (fixed and checked forcefully from the hardware company) are always available for Windows.
For example, even if you have an old ATI card.. no matter about you i7CPU: to you Ubuntu will always look "laggy".

That's a ATI fault, not Microsoft "solution" or a Canonical "problem".

[nerdtron]

Of course, with a fresh install of windows, you'll feel that it is 'faster'. Then begin installing big apps, antivirus, etc., after a few weeks/months without defragging and 'cleaning', it would run slower each passing day.

[alket]

I have Lucid in my PC and in two family lap tops, Lucid is much more faster.

[mcooke1]

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/software_and_services/ubuntu/10_04_lts_lucid_lynx/346594

[kaldor]

I find Ubuntu is a very slow distro compared to the other major distros.

I switched to openSUSE, everything is so much better. Faster bootup, faster shutdown, I can get on the go faster. Ubuntu is beginning to feel sluggish and bloated more and more each release. As much as Ubuntu 10.04 was great, my desktop computer couldn't seem to handle Karmic, and just about choked on Lucid. Kubuntu and openSUSE run fine on it.

This is a concern to me; since most people try out Ubuntu before any other distro, they may get the impression that Linux is slower/bloated. I don't see Ubuntu being the next "big OS" like Windows, but it'd be nice if Linux had about the same market share as OS X.

I don't know how, but my MacBook with almost the same specs as my HP runs soooo much better on OS X than my HP with Linux. OS X shuts down in *3 seconds flat*, suspends/resumes instantly, and boots up in about 10 seconds and is ready to go (not to mention Safari loads up in under 2 seconds on the first run). I love OS X, but I much prefer Linux. If only Linux could have a modernized distro with the speed of OS X!

I can't really comment on Windows. I have barely touched Windows since switching to Linux. It's only on a friend's PC that I ever use Windows. Tried Windows 7 in a store when looking at netbooks a few days ago though, and I found it to be a load snappier than XP/Vista were; even when set up like crap at Walmart. Win7 has some ups compared to previous versions though; I don't absolutely despise my friend's computer when I use it, compared to when he used Vista which crashed and froze all the time on me. 7 is actually a decent upgrade, but it's still Windows and WILL slow down over time like all others before it.


Typed a bit too much :)

[blueturtl]

A) It is faster on your set up for some reason. Could be better drivers on Windows for some devices or poor configuration in your Ubuntu... many possibilities.

B) It only appears faster. I'll elaborate: On most systems I encounter the Windows desktop appears quite a bit quicker than most distros running Linux. This gives the impression of speed and progress to the user, but is actually misleading since on most systems the hard drive activity indicator won't go off for a good while after the desktop has appeared. In Ubuntu on the other hand, the system is pretty much ready when I see Gnome-panel. The same kinds of things happen all over the Windows desktop. In Linux the desktop shell is just another program that demands time and resources. Often drawing the icons is prioritized less over something the system deems more important. Looks laggy and terrible.

To find out if this is a case of A or B, you need to actually time some of the operations instead of "feeling" them.

[iponeverything]

It would be interesting to see the results of subjective testing after given periods of regular use..

Say 3 months, 6 months and 1 year

To see if one suffered a faster rate of performance decay than the other. In the past windows has been more susceptible to this type of issue than linux --

[screaminj3sus]

A) It is faster on your set up for some reason. Could be better drivers on Windows for some devices or poor configuration in your Ubuntu... many possibilities.

B) It only appears faster. I'll elaborate: On most systems I encounter the Windows desktop appears quite a bit quicker than most distros running Linux. This gives the impression of speed and progress to the user, but is actually misleading since on most systems the hard drive activity indicator won't go off for a good while after the desktop has appeared. In Ubuntu on the other hand, the system is pretty much ready when I see Gnome-panel. The same kinds of things happen all over the Windows desktop. In Linux the desktop shell is just another program that demands time and resources. Often drawing the icons is prioritized less over something the system deems more important. Looks laggy and terrible.

To find out if this is a case of A or B, you need to actually time some of the operations instead of "feeling" them.

Yeah this is pretty much it. Like the icons example, I hate that. Every time I open the gnome menus after a fresh boot all the icons visibly load and it looks terrible. Linux needs to use smart caching like win7/vista do.

[Calmor]

You can use custom themes. These are two different ones I use.

Yes, there are surely themes, and even full-on programs to tweak things out, but I'd still argue that they're not to the level of Linux in the ability to change your user interface around, or at least would require significantly more work to do.

With Linux you can boot to anything from the terminal to a full-blown GUI like KDE or Gnome. Your choice of desktop environment is wide and relatively easily set up in Ubuntu at least - just apt-get what you want. Don't need certain core system processes? Remove them. Don't like the default utilities like NetworkManager? Wicd is an apt-get away. Indecisive and want to run KDE and Gnome and XFCE, and toggle between them? Go for it.

I can't knock the Win7 interface too much - I used it as an experiment a semester or so ago. It went well, and there are a lot of things that I like. I like the new themes option... the widgets are ok though I don't use many. I like the Aero effects, though I hear KDE has copied some of the better ones recently.

I just prefer the ability to tweak as I see fit, and not need to bastardize the system with software that overrides the core UI functionality to do so. (themes notwithstanding, since Vista they've been a LOT easier to install)

[blueturtl]

I would love to test the scalability of Windows 7 performance since many sites make claims it is the same or faster than Windows XP on similar hardware.

If I ever come across a disk I will be sure to run a test on my K6-III. :)

[ubuwatson]

Thanks for all the interesting comments so far. I am glad we can have an 'adult' discussion about this. On windows forums you can't mention the word linux and on some linux forums you can't mention the word windows.

Though windows feels faster, that doesn't mean I would use it over Ubuntu. Of course optimized drivers *might* play a key role, but it's an intel based netbook and I believe the linux kernel already contains the intel open sourced drivers which should (?) be the same.

Funny thing, I did some basic disk tests (nothing scientific) and throughput between both systems was pretty much the same. Compiz runs smooth as well. Maybe their is just a bit more overhead in certain applications which give the impression of a slower system. I know I can open Nautilus and sit and watch the ball spin whereas Windows Explorer opens instantaneously.