Linux Eee PC Far Faster Than Windows Version
I recently came across a YouTube video created by Blogeee.net which shows both the Windows Eee PC and the Linux Eee PC (I assume each with the same specifications) starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down. It is very apparent in the video that the Linux version is much faster, but, since only the startup is done at the same time for both machines, it is hard to tell just how much faster. I timed each part (starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down) to see what the time difference really was. Here is what I found:
Startup
Linux: 30 seconds - Windows: 54 seconds
Launching Firefox
Linux: 4 seconds - Windows: 16 seconds
Shutdown
Linux: 6 seconds - Windows: 68 seconds
(Note: Numbers are approximate. Firefox start time is from clicking on the Firefox icon to the dialog about starting a new session and then from the end of that dialog to when the windows appears, or, in other words, everything but loading the web page and waiting for the user to click on new session or resume session.)
Those numbers by themselves are impressive, but they get even more impressive when you look at how many times faster the Linux version really is.
Startup: Windows takes 24 seconds longer. Linux is just less than twice as fast.
Launching Firefox: Windows takes 12 seconds longer. Linux is four times faster.
Shutdown: Windows takes 62 seconds longer. Linux is slightly more than 11 times faster.
Look at it, Microsoft. Vista would barely even run on these things and Windows XP is much slower than Linux. This is very likely to be Linux’s first major success on the desktop.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 am
What about opening up OpenOffice Write and Calculate? Those would be interesting measures
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
[quote]This is very likely to be Linux’s first major success on the desktop.[/quote]
except the Eee pc can hardly be seen as a desktop…
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Thats a definate win for FOSS from a technical standpoint. But I would expect more of the XP EEEs to be sold than the linux ones over the next year as a result of brand recognintion, familiarity, ignorance, FUD, etc.
I have already seen how well linux can perform on older hardware, I run Xubuntu on an old thinkpad 600e (PII 366, 128MB) and it is very quick. I also run DamnSmallLinux on a TP 380z (PII 266, 64B) an it is a very usable internet terminal, media player, web server and SSH gate
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
“This is very likely to be Linux’s first major success on the desktop.”
It’s a laptop.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is a bit misleading. I actually own both a Windows and Linux version of the EeePC. It’s true that the Linux version boots and shuts down faster than Windows, but surprisingly that’s almost the only thing it does faster. IE starts faster on Windows versus Firefox. MS Works is WAY faster compared to OpenOffice. I also timed battery usage when idle (and connected to my AP), and both Windows and Linux lasted about the same amount of time. Linux had about a 5-minute margin, which is negligible.
I actually like the Linux version better myself, but even as a fanboy let’s not get carried away by these BS metrics. It’s just a computer, not a religion.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Those numbers are really not significant.
On Firefox 2.0.0.12 using the desktop version of Ubuntu 6.06, my startup time is in minutes (with all the pages showing). However, I have nearly 200 active tabs [that I am trying to reduce in number], so I do other things. For example, articles or code I am working in another session makes the time pass quickly until I see Firefox is calling me to put in a password for one of the sites.
I have seen the same brainless focus upon performance in database development, even when it is not a real issue. Code clarity comes first (or second) along with well constructed procedures. Using Sybase, rarely was performance an issue, when it took a few tweaks that usually sufficed to solve the problem.
The above timings are limited, who cares [most of the time] how long it takes to shut down? Moreover, the highest number just was barely over a minute. I waste much more time writing and rewriting code [simple stuff] where these timings mean nothing.
Next time find some real measures where there is a real process, e.g. gathering data from a database using similar (or exact matching) scripts. Manipulate large tables … Oh, wait these are limited tools that don’t do such work. So in essence, what is the point?
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Plus linux is actually cheaper, since you get more SSD with the linux version.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
But of course that actually installing an ‘out of the box’ XP and Linux on a ‘normal’ notebook will generally show reverse results, so it’s more likely that the current results are from a very well tweaked Linux vs. a very badly tweaked XP …
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Launching Firefox: Windows takes 12 seconds longer. Linux is four times AS FAST.
Shutdown: Windows takes 62 seconds longer. Linux is slightly more than 11 times AS FAST.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Red and jsp - Very funny. By “desktop” I mean consumer space, not desktops specifically.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Red and jsp - Very funny. By “desktop” I mean the consumer space, not desktops specifically.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
My prediction is that the Linux version of the EEE is not going to outsell the Microsoft version because someone (*cough* *cough*) decided that the Linux version should not sell for less than the Microsoft version. The consumer can tell the difference when it comes out of his pocket. The average consumer does not know, and probably does not need to care, if there’s more permanent storage on the Linux box than the MS box. No one’s going to use their UMPC laptop for a file server after all. More RAM in the Linux box, on the other hand, might enable a significant difference in performance between the two models, a distinction that some interested party (*cough* *cough*) does not want.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
yeah big surprice
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
@Steve,
Yes, I agree more comparisons are needed although I would be wary of comparing IE v Firefox and Works v OpenOffice as both Firefox and OpenOffice are far richer applications than their
Microsoft counterparts. Perhaps Microsoft Office v OpenOffice would be a fairer comparison although I’m not sure how well Office would run on the eeepc’s hardware.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Thats a very bad method. Linux boot-up usually ends without gnome started, so just X-Windows + some initial logon (very quick and usually no-kde|no-gnome) application waits for login+pass. After that, if gnome or KDE is launched, world start collapsing very sloowly.
I’m using DSL usually, thats a pretty fine light-desktop environment.
My fastest computer was an 8-bit Sharp MZ-800 with 512Kb RAM drive powered trough backup batteries (same as in old RC models).
OS was CP/M, wordstar, turbopascal II, D-base II, couple of games. RAM drive all-time powered with refresh cycle trough batteries, no-matter if batteries was powered from power source (like UPS). Batteries (if fully loaded) was sufficient for about 3 days without any external power source.
It was take about 1 sec after power-on to see CP/M ready to run, below 1sec for text processor or database application, just
couple of games takes more time (stupid welcome graphics animation)
That was fastest computer in all of my life. Even if my Ipod is
actually slower
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
@Spaulding Smails,
Works and IE comes with the XP version, OpenOffice and Firefox comes with the Linux version. Totally fair comparison. Features could be argued elsewhere, that’s not what the article was about.
I would actually disagree that the Linux counterparts are “far richer”. Works and IE have all the features most users (particularly EeePC users) will need. With the small screen, I personally don’t think power users are going to use the EeePC for serious word processing.
How about this for a quick comparison:
Opening Windows Media Player: 2s
Opening the “Music Manager”: 6s
Opening Solitaire on EeePC Windows: ~1s
Opening Solitaire on EeePC Linux: 10s
How far do you want to go with these ridiculous metrics?
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Startup time was always something that Windows was better at. XP Pro boots on my Dell laptop in 16 seconds. Ubuntu takes about 50 seconds…
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I supose XP is not runing Antivirus software and instalation is not very old..
Linux will get much faster if you start to install and uninstall software on windows, specialy an antivirus, and Service Pack 3? does it fit in C: drive after installing a complete MS-Office suite?
What about spyware, is there enough space for temporary internet excutable files like IEXPLORE.EXE ?
And what about batery drag all windows software will be in a year or so??? that’ll be time to buy a new machine with Windows Vista and put your windows Eee PC in trash… or … maybe install Linux on Eee PC and keep it as good as a new computer, maybe at this point U’ll ask yourself, why did I bought the 12GB storage windows version instead of a 20GB Linux version?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
This is such a ridiculous flame war. Not a single _real_ fact has been presented in the comments, nor has either side accomplished anything. Yes, the metrics given in the post are not sufficient to compare Xandros to Windows XP. Deal with it.