Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Sep 2008 21:33 UTC
Windows A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Acer Aspire One notebook, the variant which came with an Acer-modified version of Linpus Linux. This version was locked-down and difficult to modify, so not too long after I installed Ubuntu, and was reasonably pleased - despite the amount of tweaking it took to get it working. A few days ago, however, I realised Linux wouldn't be ideal for me on my netbook. Due to pragmatic reasons, I'm now running Windows XP.
Thread beginning with comment 329316
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by pixel8r on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.

In my experience with several xp boxes and several linux boxes, the linux ones generally feel more responsive. Not necessarily "faster" at everything but definitely if you had a few things running at once it generally does a better job of keeping things responsive, without locking the system up while reading from disks, network drives etc.

Dont get me wrong Windows XP is great, but I think it suffers when you have a few resource-intensive processes running at once. and particularly explorer really struggles a lot when accessing slow network drives etc. One bad connection pulls all explorer windows to a halt. Another example is when you put a cd into the cdrom drive - the whole system stops for a few seconds while it tries to read from the disk.

Linux just seems to deal with IO and overall system load so much better - probably its server roots coming into play i guess. And this is just in my experience so others mileage may vary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?


Yup, I used ext2. I tried just as hard to minimalise small writes to the SSD on Linux as I did on Windows ;) .

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.


Many people forget that Windows XP is actually a very mature, stable, and highly optimised piece of kit. It takes some work, but it can be made to run properly on a lot of old crap - and this netbook, in case we forget, has a hyperthreading processor running at 1.6Ghz.

The big problem with Ubuntu is not so much the OS itsellf, but the applications. Evolution is slower and heavier than Outlook 2003, Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows, Gaim is a total dog compared to Miranda, and OOo doesn't hold a candle to this specialised version of Office 2003 (seriously, that's something you gotta see to believe) and so on.

Edited 2008-09-05 06:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yup, I used ext2.


Ext2 is indeed not a journaling filesystem, but it is getting quite venerable now and it has the worst performance of filesystems that you could choose for Linux.

http://librenix.com/?inode=922
http://lists.mysql.com/benchmarks/133

Agreed that you wouldn't want to use a journalling filesystem for a SSD ...

... so why didn't you try a Linux filesystem that was actually designed for use with SSDs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2
http://sourceware.org/jffs2/

http://logfs.org/logfs/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAFFS

There are at least these three. In fact, there is a quite a selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Flash_memory_.2F_...

Note that FAT32 is not one of them. FAT or exFAT (FAT64) ... maybe. However, given the lack of attributes that any MS FAT filesystem can support, FAT filesystems are not recommended for Linux use.

Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows


Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Bunk.

Why would you even say such a thing?

Edited 2008-09-05 09:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Did you use ext2 on SSD? That's a big mistake if you ask me. Maybe you are not aware, but on SSD, we use JFFS2. Of course, you must have had very slow performance with ext2! jffs2 is a journaled file system, you don't have to choose to disable that feature to obtain good performances. It has been around for quite some time now and jffs3 will soon replace it. Flash memory doesn't work like hard drive at all and the ext file system isn't designed to be used on flash drive. It's like using a ferrari in the jungle. It's fast when on the road, but it doesn't make any sense in the jungle.

Edited 2008-09-05 12:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by renox on Fri 5th Sep 2008 19:15 in reply to "RE[3]: FAT, it's all about FAT"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Yup, I used ext2. I tried just as hard to minimalise small writes to the SSD on Linux as I did on Windows ;) .
So did you mount the FS in Linux with noatime or relatime? A slow SSD is probably where this bring the biggest savings..

that Windows XP is actually a very mature, stable, and highly optimised piece of kit.
Agreed (except for the disk access but an SSD is different).

this netbook, in case we forget, has a hyperthreading processor running at 1.6Ghz.
Mmm, do not forget that an Atom is an in order design so it's not very efficient for a given frequency (about the same as a P4), but you're right that an Atom is no slouch.

The big problem with Ubuntu is not so much the OS itsellf, but the applications.
Yes: If you used BeOS you know that most (all?) of our current software (on Linux and Windows) suck big time compared to what they should be and this is mostly an application design issue not a kernel issue.

OOo doesn't hold a candle to this specialised version of Office 2003 (seriously, that's something you gotta see to believe) and so on.
Oh I believe it alright, OOo was an awfully slow application, it's just very slow now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.

Not hard to believe. I have done many comparisons between Windows 2000/XP and Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, Xubuntu...) on old, slow computers at work and Linux can not compare. These have been computers <= 1,8 GHz, often less than 1 GHz.

The anything-but-Microsoft people may not like it but Windows is the most usable operating system for older computers. Yes, there are distributions like DSL but they are generally too different and too hard to use.

Reply Parent Score: 2