Is Linux faster than Windows?

[rcarlos243]

 

The objective of the Lubuntu project is to create a variant of Ubuntu that is lighter, less resource hungry and more energy-efficient... Lubuntu is targeted at PC and laptop users running on low-spec hardware that, in most cases, just don't have enough resources for all the bells and whistles of the "full-featured" mainstream distributions.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taq3KIco8mk

 

So how does Lubuntu compared to Microsoft Windows XP a 14 year old operating system on an old computer? vwestlife ran a number of test including startup times, shutdown times, internet browser, CD audio rip, framerate test and power consumption to see which one is better.

 

 

[Godlygamer23]

Moved to OSes and Software.

[Misanthrope]

This is kind of a misconstrued argument: Linux is scalable meaning that it has a lot of applications and environments that run on virtually no resources at all (You do not even need a GUI for certain applications like servers that just run daemons and are administrated remotely)

This does not means that comparable apps are overall faster. In fact poorly optimized apps that depend on poorly optimized drivers like Linux game ports run much worst. Also a fully featured Linux install with a lot of visual effects, heavy and wasteful apps like Chromium, etc. is fairly close in performance to Windows.

The only difference is that Linux by virtue of being scalable, can be configured to run on much older system that Microsoft just abandons but that isn't a fair comparison: I hate people who think something like Ubuntu or Mint will speed up their PC desktop experience when overall this doesn't really happens.

[MrBucket101]

How about comparing apples to apples?

 

He's using the most recent version of lubuntu, and a 14yr old version of windows.

[patrickjp93]

This is kind of a misconstrued argument: Linux is scalable meaning that it has a lot of applications and environments that run on virtually no resources at all (You do not even need a GUI for certain applications like servers that just run daemons and are administrated remotely)

This does not means that comparable apps are overall faster. In fact poorly optimized apps that depend on poorly optimized drivers like Linux game ports run much worst. Also a fully featured Linux install with a lot of visual effects, heavy and wasteful apps like Chromium, etc. is fairly close in performance to Windows.

The only difference is that Linux by virtue of being scalable, can be configured to run on much older system that Microsoft just abandons but that isn't a fair comparison: I hate people who think something like Ubuntu or Mint will speed up their PC desktop experience when overall this doesn't really happens.

Fedora 23 is lightning fast though I must say. Even on a VM it rivals Windows 10.

[Misanthrope]

Fedora 23 is lightning fast though I must say. Even on a VM it rivals Windows 10.

 

I'm not very experienced with Fedora so I guess it depends on the window manager and such, because Ubuntu and Unity are not that impressive, like solid, comparable to windows but not that different.

 

Or maybe it's just that I am used to truly minimal systems running openbox and those just fly by comparison, but it's hardly a window manager anybody just trying Linux would use.

[flibberdipper]

I'm not very experienced with Fedora so I guess it depends on the window manager and such, because Ubuntu and Unity are not that impressive, like solid, comparable to windows but not that different.

 

Or maybe it's just that I am used to truly minimal systems running openbox and those just fly by comparison, but it's hardly a window manager anybody just trying Linux would use.

Fedora uses Gnome, as I recall.

 

Not as fast as Xubuntu that uses XFCE, but still fast.

[Misanthrope]

Fedora uses Gnome, as I recall.

 

Not as fast as Xubuntu that uses XFCE, but still fast.

 

But certainly ahead of Unity AFAIK, explains a lot.

[flibberdipper]

But certainly ahead of Unity AFAIK, explains a lot.

Oh yeah. Unity sucks in terms of how lightweight it is.

[patrickjp93]

Fedora uses Gnome, as I recall.

 

Not as fast as Xubuntu that uses XFCE, but still fast.

 

 

But certainly ahead of Unity AFAIK, explains a lot.

Easily ahead of Unity, but I've never used (or heard of) XFCE.

[Opask]

In general use yes you will notice that GNU/Linux will in fact feel much snappier then windows probably even if you are using KDE which is arguably the heaviest DE.

 

GNU/Linux is significantly better at managing system resources and allocating them accordingly.

 

For me on arch right now I have 30 tabs open in firefox, steam open, 4 terminal windows open, 3 file manager windows open, and 1 video playing in mpv and my RAM usage is still under 2gb.

 

It will however have a lot to do with what WM or DE you choose. Just using a straight WM running on X and installing your own programs will result in a much lower system resource use then installing a full on DE.

 

In terms of gaming performance crappy ports to linux mixed with usually subpar drivers means that windows usually wins except in a few cases.

 

Edit:

Video thumbnail wasn't loaded for me but I agree with everyone else. Comparing an OS form today to an OS from 2003 is a bit unbalanced.

[flibberdipper]

Easily ahead of Unity, but I've never used (or heard of) XFCE.

XFCE is one of my favorite interfaces.

[J_DeMan]

Just gonna throw Arch Linux into the distro debate here. It's super simple and lightweight once you get it set up. You only get what you put in it. Also Pacman is the best package manager I've ever used and the AUR is amazing.

[Sauron]

What makes linux "faster" is that it doesn't come with nearly as much bloat as windows, and can use extremely lightweight desktop environments instead of being stuck with whatever microsoft chose. If you install that bloat yourself, performance will be similar. At least it doesn't need multiple services that check for updates all the time though.

[FakezZ]

At least Linux doesn't have all this software spying on you that slows down your PC! /s