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 324091
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-01-06
Seriously, folks, how can you even *begin* to compare the OSes when you're not even running on the same hardware? The results are meaningless. Also, while comparing different apps is anecdotally interesting (if only because it highlights the differences in the apps), a more meaningful comparison would be to see how Windows and Linux handle RAM and disk usage for the same apps (eg. Firefox, OpenOffice, etc). It isn't clear to me why the author decided to go down the path of introducing too many unquantifiable differences in his analysis. It isn't that difficult to image a machine, install a new OS, image the new install, and then flip back and forth between the configs. Unless this was simply about being "different". But, quite frankly, I would prefer "intelligent" to "different".