Does Windows XP perform naturally "faster" on some configurations?

[Mazza558]

I ask this because both my machines (specs in sig) perform much faster with Windows XP than with Ubuntu. For example, on my desktop, the loading bar doesn't even go round twice before loading the desktop a few seconds later. I timed Ubuntu, and it's just over a minute. Both installs are fairly new, with the Ubuntu install the newest (2 weeks). XP has more installed than Ubuntu (games). Overall, XP seems snappier, but often has those annoying pauses if opening big folders/files.

I suspect it's Compiz Fusion, as its 3D effects blow away any "compositing" XP has, so I'll try boot time and responsiveness with it off.

In the mean time, removing any OS bias at all, do some machines simply perform better on XP than Ubuntu for you?

(Apologies for the late poll, took me ages to think of the poll options)

[sayuki288]

what version of ubuntu are you using?

[glupee]

both xp and kubuntu boots take ~35s to load. Though I do use an optimized version of xp (tinyxp).

[sayuki288]

might be your config my XP loads as fast as my gutsy when booting i think

[Mazza558]

what version of ubuntu are you using?

Gutsy on both PCs.

[mikeypizano]

Ubuntu always seems to boot slower for me too.

[cogadh]

It depends on how you have Ubuntu and XP configured. I just recently did a re-install of XP and I found that it's boot time had increased dramatically (much slower than Ubuntu). My original install had several services and start up programs disabled, when I did the same to the new install, the boot time decreased.

Ubuntu behaved similarly after upgrading to Gutsy. I have now disabled some of the default stuff, like Compiz Fusion, and the boot time has again gone down. I now have both Ubuntu and XP booting in about 20 seconds.

So, in answer to your question, XP or Ubuntu could boot faster than the other depending on how each are configured.