Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 17:54 UTC
Benchmarks 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).
Thread beginning with comment 324146
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I must be getting tired
by cyclops on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 23:35 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

This article is superfluous. I've read all the comments but I will save you a little time, because I've done these arguments to death.

Ignoring the different hardware Memory Footprint is being tested...not performance; application support; features; usability; maintenance; security; look and feel. Of which we all should know here are important, especially with hardware prices dropping, and particularly memory due to Vista. Vista is even being used as a selling point for memory by Memory Manufacturers...have you not seen the advertisements. We also should be aware here as a least semi-technical people memory can be used for all kinds of clever things from parity to a whole host of caching that might have side benefits, thats ignoring things like :o features.

However you paint it Vista+Office 2007+Internet explorer 7+Any necessary 3rd Party Anti-virus program is going to look pathetic from a memory footprint when compared to any Linux distribution+OpenOffice 2.41+Firefox 3...but then it would compared to Windows XP+Office 2003+Internet explorer 6. Thats why vista is losing out in the new disposable computer market. Have you not been paying attention.

This total blind denial is tedious. Its why I post less. The arguments used to be Windows had Application Support; De facto standards; Installed at default; Familiarity; Them Adobe Products; Commercial Gaming and a host of reasons going for it.

Has Linux based Distributions got enough application support with good enough Office + Internet + Small tool support. Support for those proprietary standards and supporting legitimate Open Standards ;) , One Desktop analogy it turns out looks enough like another, Adobe products are heavily supported on those ever popular Apple products, and open-source software are not only improving but is at least good enough to all but the elite if that is still true. Commercial gaming is being crippled by Microsoft and consoles simply being a better platform, with casual gaming being good enough on linux(in reality I suspect social networking is killing desktop gaming).

...but the bottom line is that if your response is not Microsoft Proprietary Products have larger memory footprints than their most popular open source rivals but they <insert advantage here> you are a <insert noun for reason for denial>


I miss the days before Vista was RTM at least Microsoft was a contender then.

Edited 2008-07-22 23:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: I must be getting tired
by Gunderwo on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 03:46 in reply to "I must be getting tired"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

However you paint it Vista+Office 2007+Internet explorer 7+Any necessary 3rd Party Anti-virus program is going to look pathetic from a memory footprint when compared to any Linux distribution+OpenOffice 2.41+Firefox 3...but then it would compared to Windows XP+Office 2003+Internet explorer 6.


The (deeply flawed) comparison is about systems that are functionally equivalent. You can't honestly tell me that you think IE6 is the equivalent to Firefox3. You may be able to make a case for Linux vs. XP (thousands have tried and we still haven't come to a decisive conclusion about which is better). And on the other end of the spectrum Office 2003 is generally a better Office (more features?) suite than Open Office (that is debatable too depending on one's needs).

The point is the idea of a attempting to make a fair comparison between functionally equivalent software is not really possible using your recommendations or the articles.

I guess the one conclusion I can come to is Windows is better at some things than Linux distros and Linux distros are better at some things than Windows. But trying to make an apples to apples comparison is damn near umpossible.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I must be getting tired
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 04:13 in reply to "RE: I must be getting tired"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The point is the idea of a attempting to make a fair comparison between functionally equivalent software is not really possible using your recommendations or the articles. I guess the one conclusion I can come to is Windows is better at some things than Linux distros and Linux distros are better at some things than Windows. But trying to make an apples to apples comparison is damn near umpossible.


I disagree. Twice.

I can think of some areas where Linux is better than Windows (any version, even XP) ... for example, Linux comes with a powerful compiler, XP doesn't.

I can't think of any area where Windows on its own is "better" than Linux ... where you define "better" in terms of "what can I get done for my money"?

So take that further ... define a set of "things I want to get done on my desktop" ... such as" browse the web; write a letter; read an e-mail and reply; make a flat spreadsheet; IM, etc, etc. Make it a list that most of the PCs that get sold in stores would be used for.

Now compare the least expensive and best-performing "solution" to get those things done using a Linux machine. Ubuntu probably, since it is the best known. The lowest spec and cheapest of the low-end Celerons would probably suffice.

Now match that perfomance with a Vista machine (tough one, I know, but there are some really high spec machines available now, so you might find something that despite running Vista can still match the performance).

OK, now tally up the costs for both solutions ... Oh dear.

So the question is ... why aren't people being offered in stores the far and away better option in terms of value-for-their-money-for-their-needs? Why is their only option the far more expensive Vista?

Edited 2008-07-23 04:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I must be getting tired
by bert64 on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 08:25 in reply to "RE: I must be getting tired"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

I think the point was, that the two systems represent the most common setups for the average user (tho i guess ubuntu would be more common than fedora), or the os vendor's "preferred" setup of applications.

Reply Parent Score: 1