PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Ubuntu is faster then Windows ?



xXx 0wn3d xXx
March 29th, 2006, 02:10 AM
I want your opinion in this. Which one do you think is faster ? I personally think Ubuntu is faster but that's just from my expericences and opinions.

NeghVar
March 29th, 2006, 02:14 AM
In what regard? comparing lock screen to switch user I'll take lock screen any day, although I dont think they are quite the same. Pure startup id say its pretty even, ms is a little faster gettin me to the desktop but once im there it still needs to load those critical solitair pieces of code which for sum wonderful reason happen to be critical to logging onto the net.

starting up say ff in windows compared to ubuntu is pretty much the same, same with OOo in both. i find xmms and winamp take the same time, vlc is pretty much the same time.

In all id say they are both pretty equal with an out of the box set up, u can tweak ubuntu alot but then agan there are also ways to speed up windows.

rado_london
March 29th, 2006, 02:15 AM
For me Ubuntu is twice faster that XP. Even Dapper with XGL is faster on my laptop.

rfruth
March 29th, 2006, 02:20 AM
It depends on what your doing, about the same speed for me but Ubuntu is *so* much better its a no brainer

:D

MetalMusicAddict
March 29th, 2006, 02:22 AM
There should be a "tie" option.

endersshadow
March 29th, 2006, 02:25 AM
Ubuntu is a faster boot from power button to everything loaded (that I want it to load) than Windows. As per starting stuff up, it's about the same...though Ubuntu utilizes memory and CPU resources a bit better than Windows...for me, at least...

nalmeth
March 29th, 2006, 02:26 AM
Although you can tweak windows to speed up, there's no way to match the speed you can get from smaller DE's like xfce and enlightenment.

Also I think gnome is faster than windows. I don't know about KDE though.

aysiu
March 29th, 2006, 02:27 AM
It's weird, but I've seen both.

I think it really depends on the hardware. I voted Windows, though, since XP's faster on my home computer than Ubuntu is.

XP is not faster on my work computer, though, or on my old (playaround) computer.

In all cases, XP is faster to boot but not necessarily to use.

I suspect XP's slower at work because it's loaded up with anti-virus and a bunch of system services and such. There's a lot of bloat that our IT department adds on to the work computers. Even if you pop in a Ubuntu live CD on that computer, it's faster than the native XP install.

Likewise, on my old (playaround) computer, Ubuntu's responsive if you have only one or two applications open. XP, on the other hand, is not responsive at all (yes, even with only one application open). The specs for this computer are 766 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM. The XP that was on it was a vanilla XP installer disk.

Now, on my regular home computer, XP flies, and it's not a vanilla XP. It's the specially-tweaked XP that comes on the restore disks that come from eMachines. Applications launch quickly. They respond quickly. Boot up time and shut down time are minimal.

Do I care? Nope. I'd still rather use Ubuntu on my home computer. It's fast enough for me to get things done, and it behaves the way I want it to. I can tweak and customize it as much as I want, and I love the repositories thing.

If speed were everything, I'd be using XP on my home computer and Ubuntu on my work computer--not vice versa, as it is now.

Oh, and I'm assuming we're talking about a Gnome Ubuntu, right? Not IceWM, Fluxbox, or XFCE?

John.Michael.Kane
March 29th, 2006, 02:29 AM
An NLited Xp install loads faster then the standard Xp version.
The normal install of ubuntu with out removing anything is ok for speed, after kernel replacements, and removal of things a user may not want the speed does increase.


Just my thoughts.

Virogenesis
March 29th, 2006, 03:14 AM
if you compare xp to dapper....dapper wins hands down

Krigl
March 29th, 2006, 03:16 AM
Got Xubuntu (and now toying with Fluxbox), so Windows aren't competition.

MetalMusicAddict
March 29th, 2006, 03:18 AM
An NLited Xp install loads faster then the standard Xp version..
Hell yea it does. I have a XP install down to 500megs installed. Boots in no time. Dapper for me is doing great though. A fresh install booted nice but much quicker after I turned off some stuff. ;)

xXx 0wn3d xXx
March 29th, 2006, 03:21 AM
if you compare xp to dapper....dapper wins hands down
I can't wait for dapper...is it coming out in October ?

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 03:22 AM
I can't wait for dapper...is it coming out in October ?

June 1st is the release date God willing.

Edit: My answer to the original question is depends. (I will leave it at that.)

htinn
March 29th, 2006, 03:40 AM
Not only is Ubuntu faster, but even Wine apps run faster than Windohs (after the first time you start one, that is).

mrgnash
March 29th, 2006, 05:48 AM
Against XP with the default explorer.exe shell... I'd think Ubuntu would trounce it. But a fully tweaked XP with BBLean.. that's a tougher call.

Iandefor
March 29th, 2006, 06:10 AM
I find Windows to be faster on a fresh install than Ubuntu. XP was designed for computers that were modern five years ago. Ubuntu's actually a recently-updated operating system.

public_void
March 29th, 2006, 10:26 AM
It depends on how you manage XP. I've seen computer with better specs than my own yet are at a snails pace, and they don't have any malware. With good care XP can run like a dream, but just don't push to hard. Ubuntu just runs fine striaght away, no need to look after it.

altainta
April 12th, 2006, 09:48 PM
Rght now leaving UBUNTU

Reasons :
Many Minor problem get to a major problem :mad:
No good Torrent Client :confused:
Very Slow for me Gnome Scks
ROOT ROOT ROOT WTF WRONG WITH THIS ROOT?
No partition support for NTFS(No write) :(
Lots of Dependency issues ](*,)
Gnome crashed :-#
Total waste of time in searching the answer !
Didn't got the answer what i wanted !
Lots of Distro but not even a single site which says abt a simple but can be upgraded to high config linux. With System like apt-get yum etc. No site for TOTAL NOOB ! (U MIGHT SAY GENTOO but it is total compilation system which is vast. it should be simple as apt-get install **** and one program entry on desktop and start using )
so much messy system every where imp files
New software installation is a pain to ***

Better to use pirated XP can configure it to max
Easy configuration
no mess around
good gui
no searching for answers HOURS AND HOURS 8)
Lots of software just have to click and install

After reading this u might think me as a lazy guy but believe me 14 days i am working on it and still don't know simple things like how to add startup program, how to customize as per program need, How to make total GUI LESS environment but multitasking cli.
MANY OTHER. there is still no good program for torrent client. I hate azureus 300mb memory eater. Requires the JAVA 50mb more !
2 gb fully filled

Sorry for my nonsense but this is the fact i want OS not OSI LAYER RUN LEVELS AND ANY OTHER THING !

ComplexNumber
April 12th, 2006, 09:57 PM
Lots of Distro but not even a single site which says abt a simple but can be upgraded to high config linux. With System like apt-get yum etc. No site for TOTAL NOOB !
tried this (http://www.linuxnewbieguide.org/)?
here are some useful links too:
http://autopackage.org/docs/howto-install/index.html
http://klik.atekon.de/ (not for ubuntu, though)

Stormy Eyes
April 12th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Sorry for my nonsense but this is the fact i want OS not OSI LAYER RUN LEVELS AND ANY OTHER THING !

On other words: "Give me convenience or give me death." You don't want to deal with the complexity inherent in computing; you want Microsoft to hide all of that from you, and just wipe and reinstall if something goes wrong. Fine; it's your machine.