Comments on: Mythbusting Linux: Linux is faster than Windows

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:05:25 +0000

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).

By: stoic soda

stoic soda — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:34:51 +0000

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

By: Nine myths about Linux | BitBurners.com

Nine myths about Linux | BitBurners.com — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:28:09 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: PhEonixDoWn127

PhEonixDoWn127 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:51:38 +0000

(*_*)Ubuntu Is Way Faster Than Windows Xp(*_*)

By: ljpp

ljpp — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:34:49 +0000

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.

By: nortexoid

nortexoid — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:13:44 +0000

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.

By: boyax

boyax — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:19:57 +0000

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

By: noname

noname — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:53:40 +0000

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.

By: ShellGhost

ShellGhost — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:41:35 +0000

Wow. Finally somebody taking the time to really compare the two OS’s from a non-biased view. I use both Xp and Linux. And I have found that each have their respective strong points. And it really depends on what I want to do as to which OS I boot. I dual boot both OS’s on a toshiba laptop So both get the exact same hardware setup. I find that linux will boot a bit faster than XP. XP is usually just a bit faster in web surfing tho firefox in XP is a bit slow. And I won’t even talk about any graphic proggies for XP, Linux just simple blows xp away when it comes to that. At least on my machine it does. Anyway thanks for a very differnt approach to this never ending debate. BTW Vista will never get on any of my machines

By: drozzy

drozzy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:49:21 +0000

Just wanted to give a thumbs up on the post. Looking forward to any future comparisons (perhaps even benchmarks :?) that you might write.
All the best!