Windows 7: 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.

More;Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7 | TuxRadar

Interesting. I'm not sure how effective those benchmarks are in representing real world usage though. I mean, I don't copy files that often. I found the boot time thing surprising. I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 x86, Vista x64, and 7 x64, and 7 clearly boots quicker than the rest on my system. Same for install. Seems to vary, but yea.

Nice read and a clean and unbiased one at that too! hard to find such unbiased ones now-a-days!

Thanks, pooch!

very nicely done report. that pretty much falls into line with my own much less exhaustive notes I've made to date. the only proviso I would suggest is the boot up time. coming to desktop is a lot different from being at a usable desktop while the unit continues to suck it's teeth for a bit.

nevertheless, an A+ effort on that report.

Interesting.
Quite early in the days of the forum, I began throwing dispersions on the wild claims being made about 7's superiority over Vista.
I was (am) a Vista lover, and had tuned it to the hilt. Most of my amateur benchmarking came out similar to those in these charts.
I think I was going overboard, as a critic, and got heavily flamed and even a threat to be thrown off the site. Well - there you go.
But this is still a beta, although Microsoft say it is functin complete. Unfortunately (?) I am a Windows lover and will not abandon it for any linux product. I will inevitably move on to 7.

Hey everyone to their own It would be a pretty boring place otherwise

I have tried Linux on and off for years, Ubuntu many times, but it is just not as easy to keep running.

People slate MS for so much, but a tuned system, such as mine, is secure, responsive and stable. Linux is just a constant stream of work unless you have the perfect hardware. Even with the 8.10 Ubuntu release, I spent pretty much a week solid performing 'workarounds' to get supposedly supported hardware to function correctly.

Linux is not beyond me, far from it, but I like to be able to get my system how I want it and leave it at that, bar standard maintenance ofcourse. I do not wish to spend all my time keeping things going.

If I had to rate them, 64bit editions anyway, Vista was by far the slowest in pretty much every aspect, then it would be Ubuntu 8.10, and Windows 7 is currently the fastest.

Not even the fastest, it also just feels smoother to use, almost zero bottlenecks when I push it hard, the whole package just feels better.

I am not a MS fanboy, I just want to use the OS that is best for me. I am old enough, ugly enough and experienced enough to tweak the hell out of my Windows machines, no overclocking though, and side by side with identical hardware mine far outperforms 'standard' set ups.

I think this may also have to do with the system you're running on. The system they reviewed on was a very powerful, top of the line one. From what I've heard, Seven runs better, but not humongously better, on top of the line systems. For folk like me however, with cheap and basic power computers, I think the performance gains are much more apparent

You should read all the comments, his "benchmark" tests are absolutely disgusting

He has no idea how a genuine benchmark is conducted at all, at one point he says DRM affected copy copying speeds thats a complete lie and total bull**** DRM has nothing todo with anything unless your playing a drm protected song or video

He also didnt mention for the test "disk space used after install" that the hibernation/swapfile where using 6GB each for the size of his installed memory so it skewed the results towards Ubuntu


I can go on and on for awile about the amount of mistakes and things he did wrong but its not worth the effort, that benchmark is a disgrace and insulting to benchtesters worldwide

Just my opinion, but the test clearly states that Windows does benchmark test for the Windows Experience Index while it is installing. It could take over 2 minutes depending on your hardware.


I think Windows Explorer is flawed somehow. I am having issues for Windows 7 on my laptop. The sleep function and hibernation mess it up entirely. I have to shut down if I travel with my laptop, because if I sleep or hibernate, Windows Explorer gets way messed up afterwards. Someone told me to do something with the wake on network function, but it didn't change anything.