Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Is Linux slower than Windows?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ats007spdou
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:02 am    Post subject: Is Linux slower than Windows? Reply with quote

Here's the thing. I have dual boot, on one Win XP Home edition (Professional is much too overrated) and Suse Linux 9.0 (yes, I'm a newbie to Linux.)

My kernel is 2.4 (I need 2.4 for a specific project, I'll upgrade later on), I have 512 megs of ram and a 2.8 Ghz Intel CPU, so I figured that everything should run fine, right? Wrong!

Whenever I open something in Suse, it takes a split second longer for it to show up and redraw all of the elements in it. Then there is the factor of me going online. I use mozilla on both OSs. But whenever I'm in Windows, everything just runs faster, the pages get downloaded quicker, the functions (back, forward, stop, etc.) execute faster and when I click on a link and a new window shows up, it does it faster in Windows! Note: I'm currently connected to my university's LAN.

I'll be honest, I'd love to move on over to Linux and do everything and anything there, but at this rate, I might be stuck in Windows land for some time, if not forever :( .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sininevagun
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, X is slower at drawing graphics as its meant to be network transparent from the ground up. But for me, other advantages of Linux far outweigh the slightly slower redraw rates in X (the ability to ssh into my computer from school, updating my system without ever restarting(even when it comes to drivers), better multitasking, better disk performance due to lack of fragmentation, better security, no registry, no dll hell, the ability to script everything, the ability to do everything only using the CLI if needed, the “programmer friendliness”, the fact that the software I use is not owned by Microsoft and I am not simply “renting” it from them and in general, more control over my computer). Furthermore OpenGL accelerated applications, where frame rates matter, are up to bar. Heck, I get better frame rates in Quake I/II/III running under Linux than I get on Windows XP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
placeholder
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xorg is quite faster than Xfree which is what SuSe probably uses, and Xorg for me beats the speed of Windows. Under load though, Linux is faster than Windows hands down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
superjaded
l33t
l33t


Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sininevagun wrote:
Yes, X is slower at drawing graphics as its meant to be network transparent from the ground up.


This is not entirely true, from what I understand about X and how both systems work.

Windows definitely DOES feel more responsive (e.g. when you click something it will give some user feedback more quickly), but that doesn't necessarily mean that Windows is inherently faster than X or Linux. There are more factors at work than simple throughput.

The main problem, as I understand it, is the fact that the Windows GUI is largely a part of the kernel (atleast the lower level stuff like GDI and so forth) while X is pretty much ALL userland material. Because of this, X will have more "levels" to go through before it reaches the kernel and therefore it goes through more levels before it can properly respond to a mouse click or a press of a button or what have you. But, I can't really say that the difference in response times on my Athlon 2500+ with 512mb of ram between X and Windows is significant enough for me to feel the need to "be stuck" in Windows.

You will also probably notice a VERY significant improvement if you upgrade to the 2.6 line of kernels. There are many general throughput and scheduling improvements in this line of kernels compared to the 2.4 series.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thalion
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Location: not in the USA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you sure you have the proper video drivers, and not running the system in VESA mode?
_________________
'If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you - and then you realize that, all this time, you've been looking at yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BaronVonOwn
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 46
Location: United States of America

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My own experience is that Linux blows Windows out of the water, both in dual boot comparisons and comparing my system to others. I've also found that running games in wine often load MUCH faster than Windows, and save/load faster too.

But in fairness, I'm running an Athlon 2400+, GFTi4800, and 512 RAM, on Fluxbox, so chances are my computer's going to r0x0r most other desktops.
_________________
What if we built a large, wooden badger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Promit
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's worth noting that the NT kernel has a concept of "foreground" processes vs "background" processes, and can modify scheduling based on these parameters.

In desktop versions of Windows (e.g. WinXP Home/Pro), the scheduler is biased towards foreground processes, which means that things like the GUI remain responsive even under heavy system load, frequently at the cost of background services. Win Server 2k3, in contrast, is biased towards services and will give more CPU to maintaining services and background processes than the GUI.

(Note that this concept of "foreground" and "background" processes is not linked to the GUI. It's more related to whether or not any given program is a service or a standard app. Any service is defined as a background process -- all others are foreground.)

Quote:

The main problem, as I understand it, is the fact that the Windows GUI is largely a part of the kernel (atleast the lower level stuff like GDI and so forth) while X is pretty much ALL userland material.

GDI calls are part of the base system. They're not done in kernel space, afaik, but they are much closer to the metal than in X. Remember, NT is a microkernel (sort of), so it's leaning away from actually doing things in kernel space. At the same time, it's very good at keeping things very close to the kernel without letting them into kernel space.


There are various Linux kernels which have their schedulers and various other portions tweaked. Try mm-sources or ck-sources at some point. The 2.6 kernels are significantly faster as well, whe you get to try them.

In addition, the DE you use matters. Many of the DEs do retarded things like running sound servers and all sorts of other crap that generally eats CPU and memory. The Windows window manager and explorer are rather quicker and more efficient than Gnome or KDE, because they're not trying to do as much. If you switch to a minimal WM like Flux or OpenBox, you'll notice that everything gets faster.
_________________
Windows, Linux, whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends on who you talk to, and how you measure the speed. There are different kinds of speed...

1) The most user-visible is the speed at which redraw occurs in the GUI. This is much better in Windows, for the reasons others stated above. Also, XFree is quite slow in this department also, since it's not properly optimized for some things. XOrg is better (MUCH better) and the 2.6 kernel also has some better support for the agpgart and DRI.

2) Speed at which files are accessed is far better in Linux, simply because almost anything is better than vfat, and most filesystems are faster than ntfs. Reiser, or XFS I think are the fastest.

3) Speed of completion if a task: This is a very hairy one, since it has many factors behind it. You were talking about Mozilla, right? Well, In Linux, it's often the case that Mozilla has loaded things at the same speed, or faster than in Windows, but is still waiting for redraw. Things often get done faster in Linux because of superior scheduling, and faster process switching. But I really don't know how to measure this one...

4) Speed under load: Under load, the speed of a Linux system will vary only slightly. In Windows, I'm sure you've noticed a hold up in all sorts of areas...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Archangel1
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 1212
Location: Work

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure the modular Linux architecture necessarily helps - kernel + graphics driver + composite manager + X server + window manager + desktop environment. Windows integrates more of those - video drivers are integrated into the kernel for example.

But just wait a while - once Windows' half-life is exceeded the slowdown will become noticeable, and the only solution is a rebuild. Would still like to know how it does that...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Promit
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shash wrote:

Speed at which files are accessed is far better in Linux, simply because almost anything is better than vfat


Well, vfat is actually blazingly fast. It's just that, with the no permissions and the no journaling and the fragmentation...yeah.
_________________
Windows, Linux, whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peacefaker
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 117
Location: Vaasa, Finland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I know for a fact that SuSE linux 9.0 is slow, and when I say slow I mean its the slowest I have ever seen, 8.2 was much faster so is 9.1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Omega21
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 788
Location: Canada (brrr. Its cold up here)

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing that may also effect performance, is what DE/WM you are using.
Example: KDE/Gnome/FluxBox/ETC.
KDE and GNOME are a lot bigger, so they will run things slower then FluxBox.
Also, KDE has a lot of nice eyecandy. :). The only problem, is every nice thing you do to make your computer look good, will dampen performance.
What DE/WM are you using?
Ian
_________________
iMac G4 1GHz :: q6600 //2x 500GB//2GB RAM//8600GT//Gentoo :: MacBook Pro//2.53GHz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evoweiss
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 1677
Location: Edinburgh, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BaronVonOwn wrote:
My own experience is that Linux blows Windows out of the water, both in dual boot comparisons and comparing my system to others.


I have had much the same experience with respect to comparing systems (I don't dual boot). My work computer and others at work which runs windows and are very up to date and have better specs than my machine actually seem, at best, a bit slower.

Also, one thing my home system blows those computers away on is boot-up time. It takes me far less time to get into KDE from powering on the computer than it takes to get into XP or 2000.

Best,

Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KiTaSuMbA
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 430
Location: Naples Italy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Omega21 wrote:
Another thing that may also effect performance, is what DE/WM you are using.
Example: KDE/Gnome/FluxBox/ETC.
KDE and GNOME are a lot bigger, so they will run things slower then FluxBox.
Also, KDE has a lot of nice eyecandy. :). The only problem, is every nice thing you do to make your computer look good, will dampen performance.
What DE/WM are you using?
Ian

Since he runs SuSE and says he is a newbie I'd bet for a fully blown KDE environment.
In any case, that should not be enough to bring that sluggish impression. I run a desktopful of superkaramba heavy-weight crap (with lots of rotateImage and the likes) and my athlonXP 1700 w/ an nvidia GF4 440MX is just fine. Far more responsive than any winXP I've seen in similar boxes...
So there are two main suspects for annoying slugginess:

- kernel: vanilla 2.4 and probably SuSE-prepared ones are not preemptive while many of the patch-enabled versions were rather tricky on certain conditions. I remember using an older ck-prepared 2.4 (one of the first featuring his elevator) that did great while on CPU load but just as soon as noticeable disk I/O started would almost halt. Latest ck 2.4.26 seams to be just fine though...

- video card drivers: even nvidias w/ the proprietary driver can be sluggish if not configured correctly, like choosing or not the kernel's own agpgart. Trying to configure an ATI for best performance is simply a lost cause. Other contenders are simply not present in modern hardware...
_________________
Need to flame people LIVE on IRC? Join #gentoo-otw on freenode!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John5788
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Posts: 2140
Location: 127.0.0.1

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the newer version of xorg (6.8) has xdamage which would improve windows moving around and the all around responsiveness. i feel linux feels faster than windows
_________________
John5788
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nyteryda
Guru
Guru


Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 337
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) It depends on your setup first and most importantly, (Things like DMA not being setup means that you HardDisk might run 10 times slower than it should) or Prelinking/Preloading your apps. or your choice of filesystem.
2) Some Tasks Windows is faster Some linux is faster (regardless of setups) (refreshing may just be one of those that windows excels in My Gentoo box boots in 1/4 the time windows loads in for example (your SUSE may not due to uneeded services and such)
3) Its not Just Windows/Linux that the problem with speed, it could be the drivers for things or applications code (or the toolkit used to to build the GUI) , things which are neither under the control of Microsoft or the Kernel team, but we attriube them to Windows/Linux.

Also as other people have discussed, just because windows appears faster in display that is just one aspect, how long the program actually takes to do something important like compilie a program or rebuild a database is also important and windows may not do those faster (i used to work for a database company where i re-wrote a command line database building software for windows to linux, the linux version was substancially faster on the same machine). but really its probably horses for corses I'm sure windows fanatics have tons of examples where windows is faster too.

one other interesting thing my linux box copies files through SMB network faster than winXP does on same box ??? don't know why ?
_________________
Code:
#include "forums.h"
     int main() {while (bollox) postcount++;}
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brenden
l33t
l33t


Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 710
Location: Calgary, AB

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Windows usually feels "faster" than linux at first for new linux users (it did for me anyways). After using linux for a while, I've noticed that it's actually WAY faster. It's speed isn't in the responsiveness of the UI, but in the way it handles resources. For example, on Linux I can comfortably listen to music, compile, and browse without feeling any slowdown. In windows, however, if CPU usage was 100% everything would come to a horrible crawl. Also, I think since I started using linux full time it's greatly improved speedwise, and the latest xorg with kernel 2.6 is probably fertile ground for a very responsive UI. Hopefully the UI will be (or is) as fast (or faster) as windows, but I don't really care because once you start putting the machine to work it blows windows away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
placeholder
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, there are window minimize, maximize, restore, and iconify actions in Windows which give the windows even more time to draw themselves before actually appearing. In Linux, everything but Firefox draws much faster than in Windows2k with the animations off based on my box at school VS this one. Firefox also takes forever to reload if crap is done on the box, and especially when trying to multitask.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ewan.paton
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 1219
Location: glasgow, scotland

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

im running suse at the moment {1} an it is bloody slow, to be fair i never rely believed all that stuff about optimising code worked but the apps are noticably slower

as for windows well i still think the disk access stuff in windows is better but then i never put window under the kinds of load i did to my server, linux apps tend to ship with a lot more functionality which you may not notice right away, stuff like konquror seemlessly intigrating pdf's is a lot quicker than waiting for acrobat to load

out of interest the nt kernel forground/background, is that just the same as we do with nice levels

{1} i killed my gentoo install with some unfortunate use of the dd command and my laptop couldnt take another stage 1, the fan is skrewed, ill connect the disk to my server once i get a chance
_________________
Giay tay nam | Giay nam cao cap | Giay luoi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Promit
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ewan.paton wrote:

out of interest the nt kernel forground/background, is that just the same as we do with nice levels


NT foreground/background levels are not really related to priority, and afaik Linux doesn't really schedule in the same way. You can read about the NT scheduling system in plenty of other places, I won't go into more detail here.
_________________
Windows, Linux, whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kai Hvatum
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 93
Location: Traveling around the US

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The graphical interface is wholly responsible for your perception of Linux being slower. Almost all processes run faster in Linux when programmed correctly, DVD encoding, compiling, MP3 encoding, Games (Compare Quake III), and web servers. Even some windows biased things such as CIFS now runs faster in Linux.

Drivers can sometimes be responsible for a Linux slowdown, otherwise everyone else here was right on the money blaming X-Windows. They were wrong in saying that the network transperancy is to blame though, it isn't. Numerous people have removed network transparency from X to measure the speed improvement and confirmed this. Xorg seems slow because it is. Blazing fast versions of X-Windows exist, faster then a windows users wet dream. That's with full network transparency, alpha blending, and vectorized graphics. Ever seen X on an SGI machine, or for that matter XGI's summit X server?
_________________
Still using Gentoo, just too busy for forums these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HydroSan
l33t
l33t


Joined: 04 Mar 2004
Posts: 764
Location: The Kremlin (aka Canada)

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Switch to 2.6.x. You will notice your system become at the very least 30% more responsive. And for gaming, 2.6.x owns all.
_________________
I was a Gangster for Capitalism, by Major General Smedley Butler.

Server status: Currently down, being replaced with fresh install - 20% completed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Promit
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kai Hvatum wrote:
Ever seen X on an SGI machine, or for that matter XGI's summit X server?


He brings up a good point. Why the hell are we still using an XFree86 code base? It's disgusting.
_________________
Windows, Linux, whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
niffs
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 212
Location: The Wired

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Here's the thing. I have dual boot, on one Win XP Home edition (Professional is much too overrated) and Suse Linux 9.0 (yes, I'm a newbie to Linux.)


Hmmm... Just out of curiosity, why did you come to the gentoo forums for a question about suse?

Back to you question though: It sounds like you might not be using the right drivers, Whats your video card?

Also, Windoze slows down over time, Linux doesn't.

Also (again), backing up Omega21, A big GUI like KDE (Which im guessing youre using) can tend to be slow. Smaller Window Managers like *box, and my favorite, pekwm, will be more responsive.
_________________
No matter where you are... everyone is always connected.
[ .: my website :. ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petrjanda
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't care much for speed, even though Linux feels faster in some areas, and Windows feels faster in another areas, but what I love about Linux is that almost nothing forces me to restart.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum