Windows 8 adds fast boot which really is just hibernation to make it seem like it boots faster. In most cases you do not need to do a full check to see if system has changed so always hibernating usually works. But you really cannot use the fast boot feature if dual booting even if dual booting another Windows.
With games being released for Linux, the proprietary video drivers for Linux are improving. Before they were always behind the Windows versions.
nVidia on FreeBSD, Windows & Linux
I think phoronix has also done comparisons of Windows with Intel but could not quickly find it.
For more info on UEFI boot install & repair - Regularly Updated :
Please use Thread Tools above first post to change to [Solved] when/if answered completely.
they did. but intel linux drivers are still worse than windows. but not so much that one would experince such slowness as the OP only in desktop.
regarding boto times. - Ubuntu 10.04 - 15-20sec. i wonder how much is 12.04 with Mate.
also i am running xubuntu in vbox (on WinXP computer with 2GB ram). i assigned it 32MB for graphics, 512MB RAM, 8 GB disk (total). i have a single core cpu so i can't asign specific core to it. is running fine for some safe webbrowsing. i am also running apache webserver on it. i use it mostly to test new sites in various browsers. i doubt i can make windows 8 or 7 run in such a virtual environment. the ram is way too low to run it, also the GPU ram and also not enough disk. CPU is probably also an issue.
i've since upgrade the computer to 4GB ram so i can assign more eassilly 1GB to vbox. i was thinkign of adding a lighter wm or LXDE to it to make it run even faster.
I have fell in love with Kubuntu! It will be my main OS. Nice User Interface. Seems more snappy than Ubuntu (it shouldn't) but then again I did give it more space when installing
I will continue to dual boot (unfortunately) for Windows programs (I don't want to deal with WINE if I can just use Windows.
Actually my boot time is very fast, what takes longer is logging in (from the login screen to the fully usable desktop), that bring the total up to about 20-25 seconds, it is still very fast, but for booting alone it is 15 sec max. The same is true for all DEs I have tried (KDE, gnome-shell, Unity) and gnome-shell seems fastest in terms of initial login.
Last edited by monkeybrain20122; August 22nd, 2013 at 09:51 AM.
We really need more info from the OP specifying what, exactly, is slow?
Meanwhile, 9.6gb for an Ubuntu install is a pretty tight squeeze.
Subjective impressions of speed and responsiveness are what matter to most of us. But, comparisons are valid and accurate only when based on reliable benchmarking, performed in a controlled environment on controlled hardware. Broad claims that X is always faster than Y, or vice versa, are worthless.
I find most people equate speed with the GUI. If it's responsive and fast, most people never even notice or think about how long disk writes take, etc., unless they are running an app that has high resource demands. E.g., processing a 150-meg file in PhotoShop.
After its Vista debacle, Microsoft began an internal effort to remove or optimize much of the bloated code that its developers had added to Windows since the days of NT. Windows 7 saw some of that, and Windows 8 has apparently seen a great deal. Win8 really is faster than previous releases. The only way to know if it's faster than Ubuntu on *your* hardware is to benchmark it.
Well yeah, if we arent talking about very unoptimized and slow like hell programs like "ubuntu software center", then comparing linux to windows is mostly about gui. While victory in more or less pure cpu/ram performance tests for windows isnt much of a factor, the biggest part of windows speed is its perfectly optimized and just flying gui - in windows 7/8 everything about gui's speed and quality is just perfect, and that where linux is having a lot of difficulties - many mini des with many problems + worse drivers. But hey, linux just recently began to move forward with its graphics, and windows already has reached its perfection (lets hope microsoft will not kill windows with their mobile-mania). So, maybe when wayland and mir will be released and will get tons of fixes and improvements, and graphics drivers will get improved during these ~5 longs years, maybe linux will catch up with windows. Yep, thats another problem of all linux stuff - open source... one sleepy man tries to "develop" something during his free time, not much of a progress and quality you can hope from this kind of development, it will take many years for anything, versus the army of ms or fruits.
And about real world testing linux vs windows - there is nothing, all you can do is just browse through both os and try to see a difference, but results relies on your reaction time, so results will be different, so this test is just for yourself, not much of use for other people.
Also you need to take into account that OEM do all the testings and optimizations on Windows machines.
Last edited by monkeybrain20122; August 22nd, 2013 at 07:03 PM.
I had been running Windows 8 since the first day I could buy it online (upgrading from Windows 7). But like 7, I've always had problems with very high memory usage, not to mention swap usage, and so-so performance. I finally had enough of Windows and last month I switched back to Linux. I installed Linux Mint 15 on my desktop (which I bought a year ago) and Ubuntu on my laptop (bought two years ago). Both Mint and Windows 8 takes about 15-20 seconds to get to the login screen but Mint is much, much, much more responsive for me. Like night and day. Not to mention the low memory usage. I've hardly booted into Windows 8 since installing Linux -- it's just there for games now. Ubuntu on my laptop seems to run the same as Mint does for me on my desktop.
Edit: I was a little off on my timings. I used a stopwatch this time. Windows 8 from boot menu to login screen was 33.96 seconds and Linux Mint 15 was 31.38 seconds (HP Pavilion p7-1210 w/ 8GB RAM). Ubuntu 13.04 on my laptop took 8 seconds (HP Pavilion dv7-4263cl w/ an SSD).
Last edited by MetalAZ; August 22nd, 2013 at 08:51 PM.
It makes no sense to call anything about Windows or Linux "perfect". That kind of hyperbole conveys no information.
Software Center is not speedy. That's why I use one of several alternatives that do exactly the same thing, only faster.
On the other hand, running Windows Updates is also very slow, and no alternatives exist. I can't decide which program I want to use to pull updates. Nor can I choose which server I want to pull from.
I've had to recently, and repeatedly, install and re-install Windows 7/8 on some very capable high-end hardware on which I've also run Linux. Nothing about Windows struck me as extraordinarily better, or worse, or faster, or slower, than a polished Linux like Ubuntu. Ignoring Win8's schizoid GUI, I could use Win7 without any angst.
But...the quality of the font rendering on both was attrocious: Smearing, distortion, pixelation, artifacting.Text in IE10 at msn.com looks like ink ran down the page. Even on $3000 monitors and $1000 graphics cards in a photo studio the results are awful. Most of my computing time is spent reading and writing, so text quality is a very high priority. Windows cannot compete in that category.