Last Thursday I reported Ubuntu Faster on My Internet than Windows XP, and the post got posted on Slashdot. If you don't know Slashdot.com, it's the self-proclaimed “news for nerds” site that generates a ton of traffic. Getting mentioned on SlashDot is like seeing your story become a pinata and watching everyone grab a stick and start swinging at your story. Unlike with real pinatas, the stick wielders try and hit you, too. People who take it seriously get their feelings hurt. I just laugh and watch the uproar for what it really is: a circus.
I always come away with two big impressions about a Slashdot storm. First, too many geeks have too much time on their hands. How else could they post so many insults back and forth on Slashdot so quickly?
Second, I come away saddened because so few geeks can, or care to, read carefully. Posts asked why I didn't tell them which browser I used (I did, Firefox 3 on both machines). How could I call this a real test? (I didn't, I just noticed how much faster Ubuntu was than Windows XP, ran the test seven times on each system, back and forth, and reported what I saw). How could I call this a serious lab test? (I didn't, and in fact my first words were “this isn't a rigorous benchmarked lab test yet”).
Windows fanatics always accuse anyone who disputes their claim that Windows Rulz to be brainwashed acolytes of either Linux or Mac, depending. Windows apologists always say that if I would go into the Registry and tweak these 12 settings, Windows will work much better. Mac fanatics will say they knew it first and the Mac does it better anyway.
The fun really came from the few responders who read my post carefully, tested it themselves, and confirmed my quick and dirty test. Several Slashdot members have dual boot machines that run Windows XP and Ubuntu and did the same quick test. Using a dual-boot machine takes out all the hardware variables, like RAM and hard disk speed and the like. In those few reports, they found the same thing I did: untweaked Ubuntu runs faster than untweaked Windows XP.
Want to know what I found really funny? No one questioned that Ubuntu on an old Pentium 4 machine with 768MB of RAM performed better than Vista running on a brand new Intel Core 2 Duo system running at 3.0GHz with 3GB of RAM. How's that for a slap at Vista?
The funniest responses? Those who started a conversation about how much more acceptance Linux would get if the word got out it downloads porn faster. And they're probably right.
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
jfruh
Apple syncing patent can't come soon enough
pasmith
New Twitter features borrow from 3rd party clients
Esther Schindler
Open Source Changes the Software Acquisition Process
mikelgan
How to set up continuous podcast play on the new iTunes
David Strom
Five important Windows 7 mobility features
sjvn
Guard your Wi-Fi for your own sake
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Grepping on Whole Words
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Well, Vista is a bloated
Well, Vista is a bloated piece of clunkware. Advanced technology and aesthetically pleasing and intuitive interface, sure, but slow as hell. XP is also an 8 year old operating system.Compare to Ubuntu, which is a well written and assembled linux distribution which is light and modern. I think its performance would have been obvious.
Porn
-- funniest thing is that i had a user slamming his computer with porn -- Had to load ubuntu for its anti spyware features. Maybe the word is getting out.A reflection on Microsoft
Windows xp and 2000 was the peak operating systems for Microsoft. They hit there mark with these 2 releases. As with anything in life there is a peak of maximum efficiency anything after that peak the efficiency curve starts to drop. Microsoft is currently headed in this direction. Was there truly any reason that just because xp is considered a 8 year old operating system it was time to move on? From Microsofts view its called revenue, from a consumers point of view they found happyness.They could have stayed with xp and expanded on the user functionality, security, and web experience using xp. But they defied the consumers wants and needs and vendors ability to adjust to Microsofts complet left turn with vista.
$1,000 dollars on average for a pc with vista. Now take vista basic, vista home and so on multiply that by the current pc market and you can clearly see how Balmer is thinking and then factor in the upgrade license or downgrade license they get you for. You hemrige money with microsoft.
Microsoft We just can't afford you any longer, some may but find it very hard to keep up but most just give up and turn else were due to the finacial scare left in our pockets.
The economy cannot afford to shell out for windows 7, thousands are loosing there jobs on a daily basis. Thousands are struggling to make ends meet and thousands have already lost everything. Does Steve Balmer really understand whats happening with consumers? I feel if he was in tune 7 would be on hold vista should be recognized as a huge marketing mistake with huge compisation and listen to the consumer.