Anyone else find that Windows 7 works faster than Linux?

I'm running both Win7 Enterprise and Ubuntu Karmic Beta on my E6400. I find that Windows 7 runs significantly faster than Ubuntu.

Anyone else get the same feeling? This is mostly with functionality. Like opening/closing, minimizing maximizing, switching windows, website navigation, etc.

cannot comment on games, but Warsow on linux barely runs well while CS:S is playable on my notebook (Intel graphics)

 

Debian runs faster for me. Windows 7 IMHO is a step in the right direction but not faster than a streamlined Linux installation. A lot of the slugishness you may experience on Ubuntu can be minimized by proper system configuration.

If opening and closing windows is taking time your X configuration or window manager may not be correctly configured (or you may be using the wrong one for the machine -- check out openbox for your netbook).

 

must be something to do with your video card

 

As far as I've seen, my Fedora install was much faster than my Windows 7 install. This was several months back though, I'm sure there have been significant changes since then (haven't been keeping track because I'm dissing Windows right now). I have to agree that if you are having any speed issues in Ubuntu that you might not be using the right config for your system. You might need to try tweaking some settings because so far, all of my linux installs have been noticeably faster.

 

Yeah I know it has something to do with my video card.

I'm thinking of moving to another distro. Maybe Xubuntu.

 

All in all, I'd have to say Ubuntu 9.04 x64 is faster than Vista x64, especially after intial boot up. I don't have Win7 yet to compare, but it's been ordered.

 

It's because you're using Karmic and it's Beta which makes it even worse. What a crappy release it's gonna be.

 

Karmic is actually faster for me than Jaunty. This is because of the improved video card support.

 

Yeah, i'm looking forward to a better intel driver for my eeepc.

 

You think really? 9.04 is working so good for me, I'm thinking about not upgrading until next April.

 

Tests have proved that Xubuntu is slower than regular Ubuntu, you're better off waiting until Karmic is out and Lubuntu comes out with LXDE.

 

This may be due to Compiz. Try disabling Compiz and trying it out.

 

Nah it's not because of Compiz. The new kernels have a really crappy performance when it come to Intel GPU...

 

It could also be the rendering mode... UXA vs EXA. I think I may have posted this in another thread...

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/UxaTesting

 

I've found boot up faster with Ubuntu 9.04 x64, but some actions are much faster under win 7, notably flash web performance, desktop effects, and connecting to wi fi networks.

Either way, the stock Vista on my HP was adog, and is best forgotten.

 

I can't really speak any for Intel GPUs, seeing as I don't have one. BUt what I have noticed(I ran 7 for like a month or more), is that Linux starts applications faster, but login is slower, and that Compiz has better effects than Aero, but can get in the way at times. Overall they are about the same speed. But this is based on Ubuntu Jaunty vs Windows 7, and Windows 7 will be landing about the time Ubuntu Karmic lands, so we can compare the two then.

 

Switching from Ubuntu to Xubuntu isn't really switching ditros lol, try Fedora or Sabayon

 

really? Ubuntu on my laptop boots in just over 5seconds (intel SSD ) vista/Win7 around a minute...

 

Fedora Core!! It's hard to beat Linux in raw speed.

Overall productivity is another issue though......

 

WARNING: I am going to blast Ubuntu for the next few paragraphs. If you don't like my opinion, get to the end of the line and wait your turn.

Unappealing goals...
So far Karmic Koala has very modest development goals... features such as the fast boot time and KMS should have been implemented a long time ago (see Fedora Core features), and using ext4 is almost pointless since the FS brings nothing in the way of performance improvements (in fact, even the primary developer for ext3/4 has stated that the latter FS is nothing more than a stopgap for the next FS). If anything, Ubuntu should bring other alternative Linux filesystems to greater prominence during the installation process; ReiserFS and XFS are both performance-oriented systems, while Btrfs is still in progress.

Regarding Cloud Services
The implementation of cloud services into the services is a very brave, albeit foolish one. Linux users aren't going to trust cloud services, much less other technically inclined geeks. Cloud computing is inherently insecure because of it's centralized nature, and it makes things worse because you put your data in the hands of a corporation who can't be held accountable for whatever tragedy befalls your precious data. It's possibly the dumbest notion of cloud computing; these services should be for processing data and returning queries, not for storing data!

SCSI drives? WTH?
The implementation of easier scuzzy installation is an obscure improvement that, while surely welcome amongst admins running scuzzy systems, is a waste of precious development efforts that would be better spent ironing out long-standing bugs. Ubuntu is a desktop distro, first and foremost; why on earth are they wasting their time on support for enterprise hardware when more pressing priorities are around?

Release Cycle allows for rapid evolution, but not maturing
Moreover, I'm starting to get fed up with the release cycle of Ubuntu; every 6 months means that developers are rushing for the next distro release and not focusing at all on fixing bugs. Over the long term, I've noticed that there are still bugs that have been in the system since Ubuntu 6.10; this seemingly acceptable state of bug resolution is really unbelievable, especially when it exists in critical parts of the OS, such as the unbelievably crappy Network Manager. This program has been the central service for Ubuntu's networking, yet it still suffers from bugs and is incapable of some very simple tasks. These kinds of problems indicate that the Ubuntu community only cares about the next release, and cares nothing for fixing bugs!

 

7 boots in 1 minute on an SSD? Wow, you must have a super slow SSD, because on my 500 GB 7200 RPM it takes around 1 minute.

 

Windows 7 is blazing fast compared to Windows Vista or a bloated Ubuntu install, but on my HP Compaq nw8440 or my nettop Asrock Ion 330 Sabayon 5 x64 beats Windows 7 in everything exept gaming.

 

I agree 120%! I wonder if it may be accurate to suggest their priorities are outta whack.

 

If you can handle the fonts that is...

And no i don't hate Linux. Actually i had gotten to like the system and its internal architecture, its expansion possibilities. There's a whole lot to tweak. But i'm a geek and i like to tweak.

As a regular computer user, there are some bugs that should have been fixed ages ago. All distros use the same stupid, eye-straining, large, disproportionate fonts (just look at bold vs regular for example), there's that Gnome panel bug (icons moving on their own, which is infuriating since there is no "snap to grid") which has been around for years, and there's the pile of steaming garbage called PulseAudio, and there's this and that.

The system has a lot of potential. But all the energy of the developers is focused in the wrong areas, just like Bog said.

 

Intel 80GB G1... It actually a VERY fast SSD... so yah... i don't know why it's slower but I don't care. I'm not buying Windows 7. the only way I'll get it is if the University offers free copies(which they likely will).

 

Really? I haven't had any issues with Gnome and fonts. Maybe your tweak'n and geek'n with your system too much? J/K

I will say that I don't understand how Ubuntu claims a new login screen as being a "feature" of 9.10! I'm happy with 9.04 and honestly, I really don't give a crap what they do as long as it works. (Though I would l like to see them tweak UNR's power management. I mean it's targeted towards netbooks right?) I will admit that I don't geek and tweak much, so I like to keep it simple.

Edit: I know what you mean about Gnome...I forgot, but when I would mount partitions they would overlap other icons. Sorry about that.

 

You must have one heck of slow computer.
Windows 7 boots in about 20 seconds on my $300 netbook with 160GB 5400RPM hdd.

 

Same here, W7 boots in about 20-30 seconds to the desktop. 5400rpm hdd as well.

 

A little off-topic, are we?

 

Sorry I get hung up I fixed it.


Linux will be faster correctly optimized 99% of the time

 

Keyword there being: correctly

I've screwed up my distro a couple of times when messing around with it and had to reinstall (worst one was when I forgot which folder I was in and managed to delete my entire hard drive)

But seriously I agree that Linux does rather remarkably fast, I haven't tested it vs Win7 but my old version of Ubuntu matches XP (which I have on a 20gb partition just for running some old stuff) in terms of boot (well until I accidentally deleted GRUB but that's a different story)

 

Linux itself is of course nothing but the kernel plus whatever modules are loaded, so it's always fast. When it comes to the relevant comparison of popular distros versus Windows it's a more mixed bag.

 

My command line Is faster then you GUI

 

Well if i tweak it i can get decent fonts... But it took like a week to find them (the Droid fonts) and not all programs accept the new fonts. I couldn't for the love of God get Opera/Firefox to always use the Droid fonts, they kept messing them up with the stupid Luxi Sans all the time.

What bugs me about the Luxi fonts (besides being totally disproportionate in bold) is that don't look good at all in small sizes. They are set large by default which means less info on the screen at a given time, and this is most obvious on the desktop/file manager icons. This isn't DOS and filenames aren't limited to 8.3 characters anymore, so i want fonts that can display more than 8 chars on an icon, without having to select that item.

Of course you can set them smaller but the letters start to overlap each other and it makes your eyes hurt. Last time i asked why's that, they told me it's because of some Apple patent, so they are forced to do it that way... Well, come to think of it, i don't like MacOS fonts either.

Feel free to browse the Internet from the command line then.

 

not really Lenovo Thinkpad T500, 2.8Ghz T9600, 3GB DDR3, ssd, Wifi 5300 etc.

 

I'm happy with the fonts in Ubuntu on my 11.6" or 14" laptops. I guess I'm not too particular. I've gotten so use to Ununtu, I think the fonts look messed up when I use Windows every once in a while!

 

There is no way it takes 1 minute to load Windows 7 off of an Intel 80gb G1 unless you have serious problems with your computer. 30 seconds *might* be believable.

 

Boot times are over-rated. How often do you reboot your computer? I barely ever do mine. I just sleep it. 7 is quite fast coming out of sleep. On the occasional need (updates/monthly), I reboot, but that's super rare. Boot times do not correlate to the overall speed of a system.

The only reasonable test of speed is productivity.

 

+1, I use Ubuntu and unless I need windows for some reason or get an update that requires a reboot, I NEVER reboot my system. I just suspend it.