Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Win7

<< < (2/4) > >>

f0dder:
Hmmm, were the file copy tests done on the same disk as the OS was installed to? In that case, it's a flawed benchmark (disks are slower towards the higher sector counts, and Windows takes up more space than linux). It also seems like a bad idea to turn off write caching... I wonder whether this means "turn off HD write caching" for linux but additionally "turn off FS write cache" for Windows? (there's a big difference between the two).

Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks
--- End quote ---
Oh ffs, STOP THROWING THAT BLANKET STATEMENT.

Also, they forget to mention which mount options are used for ext3/ext4 - like, does it run with journalling, and in that case, which kind? If they compare unjournalled ext3 to NTFS, no wonder NTFS loses out on lots-of-small-files :)

I'd love to see more 'scientific' benchmarks, as I'm pretty sure NTFS isn't always the best filesystem... but comparisons do have to be fair (ie., comparing to a journalled FS, copying from/to "comparable" locations (to avoid harddrive-speed issues), et cetera). This benchmark looks somewhat pseudo to me, but at least not as pseudo as the ones from that Adrian Kingsley-Hughes guy.

BTW: imho benchmark results shouldn't be averaged, as that means abnormal spikes will influence the result. Instead, the best timings should be chosen...

Lashiec:
So, how many mouse clicks do I save during the installation routine if I upgrade the computer? ;D

zridling:
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.
--- End quote ---

f0dder:
My machine is a Q6600 quadcore (w/o HT) running 4 cores at 3.01GHz, and 8GB of ram, sporting 2x74GB raptor drives with 16MB of cache, nya-nyyyyyyyyya! (But obviously with less cache memory, less effective logical CPUs, less online storage, and slower RAM).

bgd77:
I installed the 64 bit version of Windows 7 on a virtual machine (on a 32 bit host). The installation worked like a charm. And it seamed pretty fast to me (compared with XP or Vista). And compared with Ubuntu, it seemed to be about the same. But this is just my personal subjective opinion. Next time I will use a clock.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page