Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7


In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users, but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real-world tests? We put Ubuntu 8.10, Windows Vista and Windows 7 through their paces in both 32-bit and 64-bit tests to see just how well Ubuntu faces the new contender. And, just for luck, we threw in a few tests using Jaunty Jackalope with ext4.

When Windows users say that Windows 7 is easier to install than ever, what do they really mean? When they say it's faster, is it just in their heads, or is Microsoft really making big strides forward? And, perhaps most importantly, when Linux benchmarkers show us how screamingly fast ext4 is compared to ext3, how well do those figures actually transfer to end users?

These are the questions we wanted to answer, so we asked Dell to provide us with a high-spec machine to give all the operating systems room to perform to their max. Our test machine packed an Intel Core i7 920, which in layman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache. It also had 6GB of RAM, plus two 500GB of hard drives with 16MB of cache.

The tests we wanted to perform for each operating system were:

  • How long does each operating system take to install?
  • How much disk space was used in the standard install?
  • How long does boot up and shutdown take?
  • How long does it take to copy files from USB to HD, and from HD to HD?
  • How fast can it execute the Richards benchmark?

We also, just for the heck of it, kept track of how many mouse clicks it took to install each OS.

Before we jump into the results, there are a few things we should make clear:

  • To ensure absolute fairness, install time was measured from the moment the computer was turned on until we reached a working desktop.
  • The same computer hardware was used for all tests, and all operating systems were installed fresh for this article.
  • We used the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, simply because Windows 7 was provided only in this flavour.
  • We used the Windows Vista SP1 disk to accurately reflect what users are likely to experience todaay.
  • Our Windows 7 version is the open beta that Microsoft issued recently. It is probable Windows 7 will be at least this fast in the final build, if not faster.
  • For Ubuntu 9.04 we used the daily build from January 22nd.
  • All operating systems were installed using standard options; nothing was changed.
  • After checking how much space was used during the initial install, each operating system was updated with all available patches before any other tests were performed.
  • Our journalistic friends have informed us that Windows Vista (and, presumably, Windows 7 too) has technology to increase the speed of the system over time as it learns to cache programs intelligently. It also allows users to use flash drives to act as temporary storage to boost speed further. None of our tests are likely to show this technology in action, so please take that into account when reading the results.
  • The filesystem, boot, shutdown and Richards benchmarks were performed three times each then averaged.

And, of course, there's the most important proviso of all: it is very, very likely that a few tweaks to any of these operating systems could have made a big difference to these results, but we're not too interested in that - these results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS, like most users do.

Install time

Amount of time taken to install, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better.

At first glance, you might think that Ubuntu clearly installs far faster than either version of Windows, and while that's true there is one important mitigation: both Windows Vista and Windows 7 run system benchmarks part-way through the installation to determine the computer's capabilities.

A bit of a flippant one - just how many mouse clicks does it take to install an OS with the default options?

Surprisingly, Ubuntu 8.10 gets it done with half the clicks of Windows 7. NB: hopefully it's clear this doesn't make Ubuntu 8.04 twice as easy to install. Measured in, er, mouse clicks; fewer is better.

Disk space used immediately after a fresh install. Measured in gigabytes; less is better.

While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard. NB: Vista failed to detect the network card during install, leaving us without an internet connection until a driver was downloaded on another computer.

Bootup and shutdown

Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as soon as the desktop was reached. The Dell box does take about 20 seconds to get past POST, but to avoid questions about when to start the timer we just started it as soon as the power button was pressed.

Amount of time taken to boot, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better.

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 is the only one to beat the one-minute mark, but that advantage is quickly lost in the switch to 64-bit. Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release.

Amount of time taken to shutdown, from button being clicked to machine powering off. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Windows lags a little behind the Linuxes, with 64-bit again proving a sticking point - this time for Windows Vista.

IO testing

To test filesystem performance, we ran four tests: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files from HD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD tests copied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk. For reference, the large file test comprised 39 files in 1 folder, making 399MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,154 files in 127 folders, making 603MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full write had taken place.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the small files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Let us take this opportunity to remind readers that Windows 7 is still at least nine months from release.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash drive to hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Amount of time taken to copy the large files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally suffered compared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures show a drastic performance difference between the two.

Notes: Vista and Windows 7 really seemed to struggle with copying lots of small files, but clearly it's something more than a dodgy driver because some of the large-file speeds are incredible in Windows 7.

Both Vista and Windows 7 seemed to introduce random delays when deleting files. For example, about one in three times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do nothing for 25-30 seconds before suddenly springing into action and deleting the files. However, this wasn't part of our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying.

Richards benchmark

Notes: This was done using the cross-platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8.10 uses Python 2.5.2, Ubuntu 9.04 uses Python 2.5.4, and we used Python 2.5.4 on the Windows tests. Even though the 64-bit results for Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed with the Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to 20ms on Linux.

Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richards benchmark. Measured in milliseconds; less is better.

It's clear from that graph that having a 64-bit OS can make a real difference in compute-intensive tasks, but it's not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results.

Switching to ext4

All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext3, so what happens when we switch to ext4? Well, not a lot:

Boot, shutdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9.04/x86-64 using ext3 (blue) and ext4 (red). Measured in seconds; less is better.

Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext4 dropped by 8 seconds, which is a fair improvement. We can probably discount the the USB to HD tests simply out of error margin, which leaves the HD to HD tests, and there we find a very healthy boost: 3.7 seconds were shaved off the small files test, making ext4 about 25% faster. Our tests also showed an improvement in the large file test, but it's not as marked.


Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext4 now stable we expect it to be adopted into distros fairly quickly. Sadly it looks like Ubuntu 9.04 won't be among the first distros to make the switch, so users looking to get the best performance from their Linux boxes will either have to fiddle with the default options, have patience, or jump ship to Fedora - which will be switching to ext4 in the next release..

You should follow us on or Twitter

Your comments


You are a moron why dont you go a give Gates an oral organ massage that all your brain seems to be able to handle

Vinnie The Skinny

Windows 7 Ultimate Programs....

I here alot of say about how Linux Ubuntu and Wiondows 7 having different amount of programs installled after a clean install. i like both operating systems very much. Ubuntu is really good, and fast, but with the experience ive had, Windows 7 Ultimate has MANY more Games, features, and programs installed with it. (eg. Paint, 13 games, snipping tool, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center... ect. Ubuntu has a couple helpful programs installed, but nothing to get excited over.

Superb echo

A little test with interesting results. Especially the posted reactions are much more interesting than the test itself. Throwing stones at each others seems to be an excellent disciplin for most writers.
I love to see more tests coming up and look forward for the reactions.
Great job guys!


Misleading, poorly written, TERRIBLE "benchmarks".

You just earned yourself a StumbleUpon blacklist for this ENTIRE DOMAIN because I don't want to read anything published by people willing to be seen with you in public, in a manner of speaking.

If you're going to compare the two as "desktop OSes", then you had better also include the fact that Linux wireless drivers are pretty much unusable (b43, ath5k, and others), while Windows has WinRot in all its glory (though a stable Windows system *can* remain stable; a bad network driver is forever... or until someone rewrites it, which doesn't seem to be happening)

Final word: this is utter crap. Find a different profession, one where you won't make people throw up in their mouths from reading your drivel.

good bay micrsoft

after using win. OS (about 8 years )from win 95 to win. 7 ultimate i found that Microsoft dont have chance with linux OS ;
now iam runnig mi machine with ubuntu 10.4
i think its best than win.7

The last best hope for Vista

OK people I hear all of you slamming Vista I have had a Vista machine for just over 4 years and is still boots in 40 seconds my specs are AMD athlon 2.20 GHZ dual core,
345gb HDD SATA, 2Gb of RAM has IDK how many Viruses from Lime wire,Aris,and, Frost wire and still runs better then any Xp machine I have been on.As for Ubuntu it uses low resources and I have to say has been looking better in the last 2 years right now i am on a Win 7 machine specs 2.20GHZ Intel duo core , 500GB HDD and GB RAM and have had it for 8 months and it boots in 20 seconds has been infected with a bot once and still works to perfection my first computer ever was aWin XP Intel Celeron 2.80GHZ single core, 30GB HDD and, 512MB of RAM and it booted in 30 Seconds mind you it still does and it is 5 years old so these tests are inconclusive and full of fail take a PC that has been used for a few years and then do the tests so until next time this has been your daily tech lesson and lecture Abyss signing off.

Only one thing really

I love Ubuntu and it has solved a problem to combat viruses at home for the users here - only one thing that doesn't work - flash + graphic card - iplayer is diabolical on ubuntu and everthing else is fine the networking is so far ahead it hurts. I am an IT consultant - all I want is for ubuntu to run flash properly and it's done !!! how could you get it so far wrong?
Alistair Thomson

Ridiculous nonsense.

I manage a datacenter predominately running Linux servers. FIRST, you've not installing the full distribution of linux. at only 2GB, you're barely scratching it. Now, in regards to your trumped up data transfer tests, let me just say that you have conflicting data here. How is it possible that the install is 4-5 times larger but takes only about 30% more time to complete? On the flip side of the coin, you show windows file transfers taking much longer. Let me tell you, I work with both Windows and Linux EVERY DAY, and Linux is DEFINITELY not faster.


Optimizing Windows 7

Win 7 & Ubuntu 10.04 both love using my RAM.
Everyone says its Windows' 'Superfetch' but I disabled it and as many services as I could and it was very little change.

Un-installing some 'bloatware' in Ubuntu mellowed it out.

Both OSes orginally used ~500MB of 1GB RAM
Now Win7=~450MB & Ubuntu=~300MB

as a former Win32 Developer & Ass. NT Admin.
I am a happier computer user with Linux.

15+ yrs with Windows... 3 months with Ubuntu.

(I still play games on XP SP2.)

Edit - Optimizing Windows 7 (or Sys Resources)

After closing Firefox, RAM usage for Ubuntu 10.04 is under 200MB with some applets running for checking weather and gMail... and of course 'htop' (aka Task Manager)

...did I mention this is on a translucent 3D desktop.

It makes me smile to see a finely tuned machine working with me instead of against me. (look deep inside Win7 to find the devil, -- no, I'm serious.)

Windows will die when the world opens its eyes.

Linux :(

Is that all well I tried to Install one of C++ IDE on Ubuntu last few days and I tried on Oracle VirtualBox on Windows 7 by booting Virtually ,and I figured out 3 or 4 hours but still I couldn't realize how to setup C++ IDE ( I tried Anjuta and Mono both) most of people claim follow this or that but none of methods work for me ,I am pretty sure there is something wrong but couldn't find where it's cause the process of installing very annoying and everything Command Prompt based(of Ubuntu)

finally I have downloaded that manually and then there is no way to setup it ,damm.!
but in Windows you don't want to mess up around so much just download->Install
sometimes you may need to copy and paste the path to
System Environment but most of newer IDEs already done it automatically ,I was sick of Ubuntu and gave up and back to Windows,I have Windows7 64bit and I am very happy about Windows and also almost every game work on Windows infact most of free software on internet are Windows based not Linux or MacOS.!

The only Con is the Malware trouble everytime
you need to scan the computer unless you are totally screwed ,it was happened to me couple of times
I hate those Malware developers probably they are Windows haters.!!
well I don't like Microsoft as well cause they dominate over every poor development Orgs and crush them down
to sell their products that's their nature but what we suppose to do.? ah if Windows is the only solution.! sad

Windhoos 7

Zo als elke windows vervuild windows binnen no time
en word zo traag als het maar kan
Linux 4 ever

Lack of Info

First of all, if you want people to take this thread seriously, how about you specify how big the files you are transferring from HD to HD, and from USB to HD. In boot and shutdown, you didnt specify what services were running. Windows 7 automatically loads drivers for all the hardware installed, thanks to the new plug and play which has been developed...

Either way, it is not specfied if the hard drives are running in compatability mode, or in AHCI (which is the true SATA speed of 3 gb/s)

It also depends on the hardware, which you are running.. My windows 7 does not take 14.5 seconds to shut down, it takes 11 seconds, which i timed myself...

Compare linux with windows on a "normal" machine, and then......

And how many people you know with a "Dell Core i7 920, which in layman's terms has four cores running at 2.67GHz with hyperthreading and 8MB of L3 cache. It also had 6GB of RAM, plus two 500GB of hard drives with 16MB of cache."????


O que tem a ver o cú com as calcas?

Quando estiverem comparando SUSE com Microsoft, eu mudo de dsitribuicão!

I am installing ubuntu as we speak . . . from a live USB

If you don't think linux is the future than your kinding yourself . . . Ubuntu 10.10 is smoother than a Mac . . . .. and people what a system that "JUST WORKS" that is why Steve Jobs has been able to sell Macs for triple their retail value in specs . . . They work . . . fast and smooth . . . no viruses and the user is in control . . . Just as android and iOS murdered win-mo and have began tp dominate the mobile game . . . . so shale the laptop . . . netbook . .. PC game follow . . .

how kool is that I can USE my computer as it installs and look at that it is all done .. . time to reboot this puppie . . . . Install Ubuntu and thank me later

Tests should be repeated over few months ;)

So far, my experience with windows tells me that after some time it boots, shuts down and starts different apps much slower. XP and Vista can became very thoughtful after 2 years and that's on a computers used for office tasks and without games... And Ubuntu works just as it did from beginning.
I remember there was some video on the web comparing how windows slows down on netbook after couple of months and ubuntu works as fast as it did.


get a big HD and a mac and get them all, game on windws, brows on 'nix and work on mac. somthing like that.
Have them all and learn to work together.

Performance comment Vista v. openSUSE/Linux

Okay... Earlier this year I made the plunge away from WinTel machines to a Mac... I have been pleased with the change ---not because I am a loyal fan of either company...but because of speed and work production.

I know that OSX is a unix derivative so I decided to change my laptop (dogged by Vista) and my desktop (also Vista) --to Linux (Novell's openSUSE 11.3)...

I will never go back to Windows---I had upgraded to a Mac because my Vista laptop was slow... but if I had converted my Dell Inspiron 1420 to Linux, I might have never have bought the Mac...

While I can't quantify the difference the user experience is off the chart better than Windows.

it is like Windows and Intel are conspiring together.... Microsoft launches new bloated software... Intel sells faster chips to meet the need.

Linux Ubuntu is also smoking Windows Vista as a Web server

We have all heard about how well IIS 7.0 is running.

But few know how bad IIS 7.0 when compared to Linux Web servers.

And the answer hurts: MICROSOFT Windows Vista 64-bit + IIS + C# is 5.8 MILLION TIMES slower than Ubuntu 8.1 32-bit (yes, even with the disadvantage of being 32-bit) + G-WAN, a free Web server with C scripts.

G-WAN authors went as far as to compare G-WAN on Windows and on Linux and the results reveal that the limit is the OS kernel.

Guess who is ashamed by the comparison...

Windows (xp, 7) is

Windows (xp, 7) is forever!!! Death to Ubuntu and Linux!!!!

A very important test has not been done

A new test needs to be done which, I am sure, would show a HUGE difference between Windows and Linux. A test on machines that have been running Windows (any version) and Linux (any version) for months or years.
I fix computers for a living: Windows OS computers to be exact. Mac and linux computers rarely need fixing. After a few months or years of running a Window's PC, the computer becomes so slow and unresponsive, that the user winds up wanting to toss the computer and buy a new one. Not understanding that their OS is causing the slow down; not the computer. People are constantly asking me to speed up their computer. I do the usual: clean the registry, get rid of all the programs that start automatically, antivirus, defrag..... My point is: for the layman user out there, a linux (Ubuntu in my case) user does not have to deal with any of that. I would be out of business if everyone used some version of Linux.

Let's do some 3D ?

Let's run something that REAL people use from time to time like COD2 Modern Warfare oh wait....

Windows 7 vs Ubuntu?????

Comparing Ubuntu to Windows 7 is like comparing a Race horse to a Plow horse. Sure Windows 7 might be optimized to run on new machines quite efficiently, but if you were to run an optimized version on Linux on the same machine the differences would become apparent. However, remember that while Linux is free, Windows is backed by programmers that are paid quite well for their work. If they want to continue to be paid for their work, then there is a reason for all the updates.

I like and use both OS's. I have to game on Windows 7, but I like the fact that I can take a machine, install Ubuntu, install Wine, and copy over the installed folder of World of Warcraft and be running in a matter of minutes. Can't do that on a windoze machine.

One interesting note, I took a hard drive from my linux box and installed it on my gaming computer since I needed to retrieve data that was being lost to a Windoze failure. It ran immediately without the installation of any drivers. Try that on a Windoze box, last time you could do that it was called Windows 3.1.

the clear winner is windows,

the clear winner is windows, boot time is too slow on ubuntu, while on windows there are plenty of much better applications and they are free too, of-course linux is also free, but linux look is so cheap, and looks like developers are intrested in new distors only, why they donot want to make some awesome applications.

i dont really know why

i dont really know why poeples write such blogs, looks like they have too much time to waste, while i dont have time to waste, so get a life and get simplicity, get WINDOWS. in which you don't need hours of compiling and editing config files.

the alchemy of ditros

Good article, what a grunt crowd. I read a lot of comments towards the tester regarding using one version of Linux over others. Maybe one of you Linux fans can tell my why GOOGLE decided to base there entire system on UBUNTU Linux? And Ebay? along with several other large corporations. Maybe the author did some homework? The rest seems to be personal preference no matter what OS you use.

Every os serves its purpose

Every os serves its purpose i have 2 computers one a gaming machine it has win 7 and one a work machine it has ubuntu and win xp xp is on it incase my wife hugs the gaming computer and im stuck with this one and i want to play something. tough i manly use ubuntu on this computer beacuse less racet is herd from this old computer when its runing on ubuntu then xp.

Try it again after a few months

I don't know about Windows 7, but every other version slows way down after a few months. Even with regular registry cleaning, it just gets clogged up.


The most important thing for me in a operating system to have is the durability, integrity, swiftness with which it performs the work. I am the full time user of the Linux. I never had any experience with the Linux before. I just switched from Windows because I wanted a operating system that can enhance the swiftness of my work and I find that in UBUNTU which is Linux based operating system.


Get real

Windows 7 is the best operating system out there. I own 3 computers. I have used unix, ubuntu, redhat, solaris, HP unix (in circuit test platforms), etc. Unix at times is a BITCH!!!!! Certain drives will NOT work at all. Compatability is a HUGE issue with ALL UNIX operating systems.

As for boot times. I don't have any problems with slow boot up times using Windows 7. But you do???

Or, should I state that you WANT TO????

Have a nice day. And I hope you find ALL your needed drivers for your ubuntu. I shure as hell did NOT.

And if you are only going to use your computer to surf the world wide web only then an E-machine and forget about the different operating systems but if you want to use your computer for various tasks, (compiling test programs, running Hummingbird, using it for multiple use then end the crap and buy a PC with Windows in it. You can't beat Windows and why? HARDWARE COMPATABILITY and superb speed and stability. Yes, I did state stability.

I have rebuilt so many unix drives. I even dealt with Winchester Drives, 35 megabytes (Prism drive)and very HUGE and heavy hard drives all attached to a Unix Operating system, in a figure of speaking. 6.5 hours to formate and reload in Unix. That was a long time ago.

I remember back in 1982 how long it took me to set up a modem. What a nightmare.

Windows has made everything so easy.

Windows has stardardized the industry and Windows handles GAMING SUPERBLY (heavy graphics).

The ONLY advantage with Ubuntu is that it's FREE and that's it.


Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu

To be honest, I have a degree in Computer Science. And to say, even say, Ubuntu is better than Windows is way out of line. I have performed my own test's between the two and tested the following: performance, speed, power, accuracy, and stability. Windows 4/5 and Ubuntu 1/5. The performance went to Windows, because of it's performance, you hardly see registry errors, like you may see with Ubuntu (for ex. gnome-panel, nautilus, etc.). Speed went to Ubuntu. I'd hate to admit it but speed was faster in Ubuntu. Although, that may be true, I am willing to wait 5-10 seconds extra, just to have Windows. Power went to Windows 7. Sometimes Ubuntu's Fail Safe doesn't load really well, when Windows does. Accuracy on how things perform: Windows. And lastly, Windows hardly needs to be re-imaged, unless you want an upgrade, but Ubuntu, does need to be re-imaged more often.

Um What?

Firstly - Saying 'I have a degree in Computer Science'? I do to, like many other people, so what other people are not allowed to have an opinion?

So can you explain:

1) Windows is more stable, how so? Can you prove this?
2) Windows is more powerfull, how so? Can you prove this?
3) Windows has more Accuracy on how things perform? How so? Can you prove this? lol
4) Linux needs to be re-imaged (re-installed?) more then windows? How so? Can you prove this?

Making claims like this don't really prove anything besides your own bias.

Best out there!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok Bruce,

Windows is the best operating system out there. I'll take your word for it.

Whats with the story's from the 80's? Relevant how? Oh i see you have a personal grudge with Unix because in the 80's you had to rebuild drives. In 1982 it took you a long time to setup a modem?

Newsflash it's 2011, modern Linux kernels and modules are pretty much on pare with Windows in terms of out of the box driver compatibilty (We are talking normal PC hardware and peripherals) I can also connect my Phone, GPS, Camera, Printers and USB Disk drives without the need to additional drivers.

I work with an IT Support agency and the guys regularly get Driver compatiblity issues with Windows, especially Windows 7.

To say that hardware compatiblity with Linux is TERRIBLE and suggest that Windows will solve every problem and be compatible with utter rubish....

Have a nice day :)


Count in the time consumed by the first update, it's annoying that it takes up around 50 minutes of non-pc using time.. that isn't fair to linux who polite updates the system in ~10 mins at background

god work

god work

And this from a novice

After reading all these post from what I gather to be somewhat experienced end users, knowledgeable in every aspect of ALL Windows variants and Linux based systems. Here is a thought merely from a business owner that has used pretty much every OS system out there now. We simply want a system to be stable , relatively easy to maintain for an employee that doesn't need an IT masters degree , and an operating system that DOESN'T break the friggen bank to initially buy and spend more money just to keep the damned hackers at bay. JESUS!!!(I mean REALLY Microsoft!!!) you have got enough of my money.

Those of you who care to read between the lines what I use primarily on all my PC's, not to hard of a guess.

I will take the extra money I saved and put it where it belongs , in my business and my employees wallets and pocketbooks

About Linux

I use Linux since 6 years now. I am using ArchLinux and will never install anything else on my PC. It is far easier for me just to grab the CD with Linux and install it instead of paying money for Windows which does not give me anything better - just more paying for any new software I'ld like to use. I know a lot of people praising Windows which actually do not have the right to use it, because they use it illegal. Same for the software - mostly cracked (because they need to pay again). I do not have this problem with Linux - its all free.
Regarding the performance - I am sorry but no Windows can beat my Arch in performance. I think that most of the people just do not know how to use Linux. Ubuntu is not a good example simply because it is one bloated system to help the regular user (or I might shall say loser).

uhmmmm what?

what the hell does this mean !? haha ku ku

Let's test that

Test how long you need to check your system has best possible drivers, how long stupid nvidia drivers install and how hard is to change driver version in linux. Then check what happens if you made bug in configuration that harm your system a little and Ubuntu and Windows will not want to boot normally. In Windows XP is safe mode easy for resolve any problems, Win7 can resolve some problems just on-the-fly, restore previous working configuration is also great if something wrong happens. And Ubuntu? Wow, if you're very lucky and know everything about system, then MAYBE you should fix small xorg.conf problem using lot of commands and additional bootable CD/USB device. Sorry, but stability and safety when nothing happens is nothing. What matters in real life is possibility to easy undo all wrong changes made by user and check everything using easy tools.

Sorry for my english.

Windows 7 is perfect O.S for

Windows 7 is perfect O.S for home users. Looks like linux never needs configuration, no patching, no anti virus, eveything is joke. End users dont care what dey care is peace of mind and they want everything. They buy any hardware anywhere in world, it should work.

Linux eats dust when comes to globalization and localization.

Mac Os is even worst...most closed and steve jobs defined o.s

When it comes to hardware, linux cant even think about to match windows. Windows is better o.s for home and no voices, but a closed mindset.


maybe the boot of windows 7 and windows vista is high because of all services that are stared and programs.. maybe you can try to stop all them and try again .

7 only

windows 98 is even better than ubuntu

Biased Much?

This article is embaressingly biased and thus holds no credibility whatsoever. Shame cause it would have been good otherwise.


I bought new laptop yesterday with original win 7 home
i just removed win 7 and install Ubuntu
relay i don't fell fine with windows

high prise
every thing under windows by money

virus and spy every time
every second update and update
restart then restart again

These tests are certainly eye-opening.

These teats baffles me. I've been a **faithful** Windows/Microsoft/Dell user ever since I was like 3 (seriously), so I can say some pretty well-proven stuff about Windows. It always took the longest and always will. It's Microsoft's nature! Think about it: bored employees there for the cash (Windows) vs. hundreds of dedicated hackers, anti-hackers, and programmers piecing together the best features of Windows into Linux (Ubuntu)!
I am making this statement with 10 years of Windows under my belt opposed to about 5 hours on Ubuntu, which is REALLY saying something.

As for the install, starting Ubuntu was a pain in my ass for 3 hours while Windows 7 was a breeze to begin. However, after both got going, Ubuntu far surpassed 7's first "true" boot (full capability). I was able to just hop onto the 'Net and get my apps and Google Chrome and all that running. (You also must take into account that my computer's got 500gigs of HDD and 8gigs RAM to toy with.)

That's pretty much all I have to say about this, but I did forget to mention that I have NEVER used Vista and NEVER, EVER will! With that said, I think that wraps up my comment. Enjoy your day/night, and thanks for reading this if you did! :)

I'd love to see more

This post is really dated and I doubt most of the reader fully understand how useful something like this could be.
First of all to the whiney b***hess that nick pic at every little detail such as "ubuntu is not linux" and my experience this or that" please go to school. If you want your nix mentioned run your own bench, and your mature,tweaked/heavily scripted nix doesn't count. IT specialist and other technical people should keep tbheir mouth shut on something like this.

The average joe has to download and instal his own nix or M$, complaint about difficulty is often based on the number of clicks/option the newb has to encounter. Startup and shutdown times are important especially for students needing to find assignment before the bus leaves.

If anything this lacks more test on other linux variants for comparison. Btw if your condition is right out of the box, keep it, let the fanboys do their own test after two weeks of use (unless it's something you just want to add for further discussion). If you could widen the M$ back to XP and the upcoming 8 and, toss in a few Macs for good measure. Mix your test machines also low end, gaming, nettops etc.

Like I said I've been waiting for something like this for a while and the potential for true real life simple benchmarks of OSes is exciting create a section for users to load stats and you've checks and balances.

Just forget the naysayers and whiney old IT desk jock an M$ employees surfing the net making negative comments about linux on a linux site. Like - said it has potential and I'll be back before christmas to look for a new more comprehensive benchmark.

Windows vs Ubuntu

I`ve run both Windows Vista and Ubuntu on my computor and have really gotten to prefer Ubuntu for many reasons, not the least of which is cost. No more having to pay for the next version. Not to mention, I`m not sacrificing anything in performance. In fact, in most cases, Ubunto is a well gained advantage.


Ubuntu is definitely faster than Vista. I'd say 3-4 times faster, from what I have experiensed. In EVERYTHING. Boot, cold start program, warm start program, (and mind here, that it's very normal to use 2-3 MINUTES or more to open like GIMP in Windows), shut down, and everything else you can ever think of. Usage of RAM, fx. Vista was a ressource hog in every mean. IF you want the "Vista Theme", you need at LEAST 4 GB of RAM???!?

MS cheated and lied about hardware and RAM needed for Vista. Look at MS home page for system requirements, they're still there, still the same from the "microsoft intel vista-case" (look that up on Google), and they are still a big damn lie. Then look at requirements for Ubuntu - they are true.


not to analyze the presented data as accurate i will say that my netbook ASUS eeepc 1018p(intel atom n450) without 2gb ram upgrade came with windows 7 starter(approx $50 price included in the overall price for those who don't know this when buying netbooks with ms software preinstalled) had a fair bootup time however was extremely bare bones with a starter edition of ms office(big annoying advertisement taking up space on word) and when i discovered that the desktop wallpaper was locked and unchangeable i was seriously pissed. this computer struggled to perform even basic tasks like opening files and folders with considerable lag after removing the small amount of bloatware. it was not until i upgraded to 2gb of ram that it got some "breathing room" meanwhile Ubuntu 11.04 was flying by comparison in every area from my usage. networking was far superior. windows couldn't even tell if my wireless card was working half the time without messing with the settings repeatedly. even then it took nearly a minute before i could even getonline after connecting. in ubuntu connecting and surfing can be measured in seconds counting them on my fingers and often was immediately connected to a trusted network as soon as my desktop appeared. to top that off i switched to linux mint 12 and saw a huge performance change with my internal HDD from about 14mb/s write speed from external source on either windows or ubuntu to nearly 30mb/s write speed(something i didn't even know my HDD was capable of! oh and running compiz with lots of visual 3d effects(on intel integrated graphics BTW!) is relatively good eye candy too as well as practical. and customization... no comment there, lets just say that i felt liberated when i switched. i dual boot but rarely use windows now unless my work requires the use of applications that are extremely proprietary and nearly impossible to get working on linux. hell, even the PCSX playstation emulator works better than ones for windows from personal experience for wheneven i'm bored and want to kill time. all in all I'm pro linux regardless of whether the tests and data represented here were skewed or unrepresentative of real facts. I know my experience and that's what counts. a great philosopher once said at the age of 14 "if a thousand men agree upon a subject and know nothing about that subject then their opinion is of no value.". OH and i've yet to find a device linux doesn't recognize immediately after plugging it in or connecting to it. and what about community support? try getting advice with serious issues in windows for free... google your problem with a linux distro read a few articles and see if you don't stumble upon exactly what you're looking for. the Open source community has a far more useful knowledge base(that actually can be useful across platforms in some cases) and the attitudes are relatively friendly and willing to help as long as you're willing to do a little work yourself and learn something practical in the process. that' my 2 cents.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Username:   Password: