Mythbusting Linux: Linux is faster than Windows
The question of which operating system is faster is often heard in Windows vs. Linux debates, but unfortunately it is very common that total crap is said or written about it. What is surprising about it that even information sources that you might consider somewhat professional can be totally wrong in their beliefs, or just fail to be objective while passionately debating for the operating system they favour. Couple of days ago I saw Desktoplinux.com making a statement that OpenSUSE or PCLinuxOS 2007 require far less resources than Windows Vista or XP. So which one is really the best performing or least resource hungry?
In making a Windows vs. Linux comparison we have to be distinct that what are we actually comparing. Linux comes in all shapes and sizes, and actually Linux only refers to the kernel itself, while various Windows editions have been released as well. Therefore we are comparing performance of systems designed for similar use cases, focusing on modern desktop Linux distributions in comparison to Windows XP and Vista.
When Linux fans are ranting about Windows XP’s performance, they tend to forget that it was released back in 2001. This means that it works with the hardware of that time,which of course were very modest in comparison to the PCs today. Minimum system requirements were 233MHz CPU and 64 megabytes of RAM. From my first hand experience I can tell that you can run XP on 233MHz CPU, but the 64MB RAM is not enough. 128 MB is sufficient however, I have installed and used XP on several occasions with such hardware.
On system boot the WinXP consumes around 60-80 MB of RAM, and with a little tweaking you can go below 70. Now if we start comparing to modern desktop Linux distributions introduced in 2007, their average memory consumption after system boot to Gnome or KDE desktop seems to be around 120-170 megabytes. No matter how much you like Linux, don’t come telling me that your fancy desktop distro is easier on the resources than Windows XP. Of course there are special light weight Linux distros that can achieve this goal, but that is not the point here.
So obviously Windows XP will fly if you use it with modern powerful hardware. Of course you can make it slower by installing crappy software like Norton’s security suite, and making every possible application to start on system boot and stay lurking in the system tray, but that is your fault and not Windows’. On the other hand, if one has processing power and memory to burn, Linux is much better at making use of these resources, especially RAM. Linux consumes all available RAM for useful purposes such as caching, which improves the performance.
Windows Vista on the other hand is a different story, and I have very little experience using it, as I try to avoid it as long as I can. The system requirements have grown to 800MHz and 512 MB of RAM, but the figures are seriously optimistic. I have installed Vista to a brand new budged PC with 1GB of RAM (can’t recall the CPU speed) and it was crawling. My friend had it running on a HTPC with only 512MB RAM, and I can’t say it was comfortably usable. In order to get fancy 3-D Aero desktop running, you really need a modern and a rather high performing computer. Now if you compare Vista to modern desktop Linux distros, it really makes the latter look good. With Vista’s minimum requirements, you can get nice performance out of Ubuntu, openSUSE, PCLOS or whatever comparable distribution, and you most likely can even enable the fancy 3-D desktop visuals. After system boot you will still have more than half of the 512MB RAM available for the applications.
So definitely Windows XP is less resource hungry than typical desktop Linux of today. On the other hand, Linux can make better use of your system resources if you have plenty. Vista is a different story as it has turned out to be a resource hog, and is easily outperformed by Linux distros.
So what is the verdict – is it true that Linux is faster than Windows? Yes it is, especially when we are comparing the latest editions, which means that we are looking at Vista and not XP.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
We’re not saying that Compiz runs faster than Windows XP, although in many cases it does (program-wise). We’re not saying the most advanced Linux interface is less memory-consuming than Windows XP’s classic theme.
The truth is that, with all of the eye candy, Linux can run just fine on a mere 256 MB of RAM (twice as much as XP’s default GUI), and that guis like fluxbox or e17 are more efficient and fast than Windows XP’s GUI.
I would know, since a fresh install of XP on my parents’ old machine with a mere 112 MB of RAM crawled along hopelessly, but with Enlightment 17 on top of Xubuntu 9.04 made it run like a charm, along with some extra effects, mind you.
I think to have a very clear understanding of these issues you need to have extensive experience with both systems at each of their levels. And the truth is that even the low-level GUIs for Linux have quite a bit to offer when pitted against the Windows 7 GUI and Mac OS X’s GUI.
Of course, I’m referring to the extensibility and portable of e17 at the moment (widgets, docks, applets, etc).
August 17th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Windows 2000 was the last great operating system.
Slackware 10.1 was the end of a great era of Linux Distributions.
FreeBSD 4.3 was the last great Unix.
RiP
March 31st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
[...] some Linux mythbusting concerning two of the much debated Linux features vs. Windows: Stability and speed. Now a rather well know editor Bruce Byfield goes much farther than us and comes up with a list [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 6:51 am
(*_*)Ubuntu Is Way Faster Than Windows Xp(*_*)
March 12th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Adobe Flash is one of the bottlenecks in Linux performance, that’s for sure. The version 10 was supposed to improve this, but it seems that mileage varies a lot. My T41 Thinkpad is also impacted with poor flash performance.
Interestingly, openSUSE seemes to perform even worse than Ubuntu (which is somewhat acceptable) on this hardware. For any Linux PC, especially with lower end hardware, I strongly recommend the FlashBlock add-on for Firefox.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Using both various modern distros of linux (Ubuntu/Kbuntu, Fedora, etc.) and Windows XP (but not Vista) all I can say is that, on my Intel Core Solo ULV (1.06 Ghz) laptop with 1GB of ram (and integrated Intel graphics), Windows XP is about a million times faster than linux, especially with essential things like FLASH. Of course I have all the eye candy in compiz fusion turned on, but if I didn’t I would find linux even less compelling to use. Even on a dual core Intel with integrated graphics and tons of ram, Fedora runs like crap compared to XP. Web surfing, scrolling, etc. is choppy and nonfluid.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
hmmm not biased huh…i have used xp and vista in my 27yrs of computing just 3 things i hate most and these are malwares/viruses and security holes which are more common in M$ world and the resource hog OS which too is common in M$ world….
why be a slave of this crap OS which i can’t even be a master and that cost me a hundred of dollar, wow…i want to be free from slavery i want to make my OS a slave for me and for what i want, does M$ offer this?. nope not a chance…..same ol window
July 16th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Some Win users claim that running XP as “limited user” allows running with few security “addons”. The security ware i think usually mentioned is firewalls (which are already “lite” when they don’t include hips, etc). Try searching wilderssecurity for comments.
There are drawbacks to running as limited user, especially for someone like me who constantly tweaks things…
I have 2 security apps (AV, FW) running on my own computer, but they are “lighter” brands. Right now:
Comodo2 27mb (there are lighter fws)
Avira 1mb and avast 1.2mb (i use as on demand, but recent install won’t let me kill all parts. something to figure out since i like avira more & prefer it be the “active” av)
So, *normal* total of security ware ~28mb
Firefox now is using 190mb (lots of tabs :-) )
Explorer 35-40mb
guess-sum of various Win services ~~20mb (i could disable a few more, maybe saving 5mb)
Tabbed text editor 11mb
Ransack (2 instances) 12mb
Proxomitron 6mb (is a web filter, closest nx sim is Privoxy or Proximodo) you could add it to security ware, so total ~34mb
The FW and scanners peak at much higher mb than “idle”, other stuff doesn’t peak much higher.
RAM is 640mb
_____________
Teatimer (Spybot resident. antispyware) is also running on the “family” computer. wild guess 6mb?
But the FW/AV is a heavy brand.
RAM 512mb
This one gets sluggish sometimes, but might improve if i fresh install xp, cuz it’s about 4years old now.