Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 17:54 UTC
David Williams over at iTWire has done a comparison of Windows vs Linux. It is performed by doing functionally identical tasks in both the OSes. This comparison is not a fair one by any measure. The laptops running the Windows and Linux were different in the hardware config and the software used for the tests were comparable but clearly different (MS Office vs OpenOffice; IE vs Firefox 3).
Permalink for comment 324088
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-11-13
From the article:
It's a shame really. I would think that a comparison of the best Windows apps vs the best Linux/open source apps would've made for a much more interesting article.
Well, I would think that anybody who would actually care about an article such as this probably has their settings tuned for best results. On Vista, this means turning off Aero, indexing, UAC, and most of the other crap that slows the system down. Similary, I would assume that a finely tuned Gentoo or Slackware setup would do much better than Fedora with Compiz loaded. Linux is just hard to test in this regard, because there's so many different configurations, distros, and desktop environments out there.
Additionally, the author says that Symantec Antivirus was installed, which basicaly means you crippled the system before it even had a chance. You might as well just load the Vista box down with malware before you run the tests. Nod32 would've been a much better choice.
Disclaimer: I didn't even read the results of this test so I dunno who came out on top. So when I say the test is borked from the beginning, it's not because I didn't like the results.
Edited 2008-07-22 18:13 UTC