Linux vs Windows?
The question of which operating system is faster is often heard in Windows vs. Linux debates, but unfortunately, these debates can produce opinions that do not reflect the facts. What is surprising is that even information sources that you might consider somewhat professional can be wrong in their representation of the facts, often failing to be objective in defense of the operating system they favour. It’s common to read statements that Linux versions such as OpenSUSE or PCLinuxOS 2007 require far less resources than Windows Vista or XP. So which one is really the best performing or least resource hungry?
In making a Windows vs. Linux comparison we have to be specific in the comparison. Linux comes in all shapes and sizes, and actually Linux only refers to the kernel itself, while various Windows editions have been released as well. Therefore we are comparing performance of systems designed for similar uses, focusing on modern desktop Linux distributions in comparison to Windows XP and Vista.
When Linux fans are ranting about Windows XP’s performance, they tend to forget that it was released back in 2001. This means that it works with the hardware of that time,which of course were very modest in comparison to the PCs today. Minimum system requirements were 233MHz CPU and 64 megabytes of RAM. You can run XP on 233MHz CPU, but 128 MB RAM is more realistic.
On system boot the WinXP consumes around 60-80 MB of RAM, and with a little tweaking you can go below 70. Now if we start comparing to modern desktop Linux distributions introduced in 2007, their average memory consumption after system boot to Gnome or KDE desktop seems to be around 120-170 megabytes. Therefore, modern Linux releases are not easier on resources than Windows XP. Of course there are special light weight Linux versions that can achieve this goal, but that is not the point of this comparison.
So obviously Windows XP will fly if you use it with modern powerful hardware. Of course installing resource hogging software like Norton’s security suite will slow down your system considerably. Too many software applications starting up on system boot to only standby in the system tray is will also drain your computer’s performance significantly. But these factors are user error, not the fault of Windows. On the other hand, if one has processing power and memory to burn, Linux is much better at making use of these resources, especially RAM. Linux consumes all available RAM for useful purposes such as caching, which improves the performance.
Windows Vista on the other hand is a different story. The system requirements have grown to 800MHz and 512 MB of RAM, but the figures are seriously optimistic. I’ve seen a Vista installation crawling on a brand new budget PC with 1.2 CPU and 1GB of RAM. So, if you compare Vista to modern desktop Linux versions, it really makes Linux look good.
So definitely Windows XP is less resource hungry than typical desktop Linux of today. On the other hand, Linux can make better use of your system resources if you have plenty. Vista is a different story as it has turned out to be a resource hog, and is easily outperformed by Linux.
So what is the verdict – is it true that Linux is faster than Windows? Yes it is, especially when we are comparing the latest editions, which means that we are looking at Vista and not XP.
I am talking about both operating systems running on the exact same hardware. Linux will still run faster than Windows, and I am including Vista under the Windows umbrella. I am also not talking about the fluff and thunder of the window managers and desktop finery. I am talking about the guts of the operating systems. The parts that do the real work. The parts that make the real difference in how fast your bucket of bits run.
There are many factors which effect the speed at which an operating system runs. For starters I am going to remove the hardware out of the equation. Both operating systems run on exactly the same hardware. The difference between the two operating systems is the underlying design philosophy that went into creating these essential parts of our computing experience.
In the beginning of the Windows road to Vista the operating system was a single tasking architecture. Then it started out with co-operative multitasking then moved on to a preemptive multitasking model. It isn’t however as good as the Linux preemptive multitasking model which has been designed into the kernel from day one. Windows still manages to get itself into a bind when trying to do too many things at the same time. Linux is a bit more intelligent in its allocation and the total impact on the system is less.
While that makes a noticable difference in speed under heavy loads that does not contribute a lot to the total big picture. Another difference between the two is how, under Linux, all devices are treated as files. This makes programming and access to both normal files and device files easier and standardised. The result of this is programming is simpler and simpler programs run faster and use less memory.
This brings me to the biggest reason Linux runs faster than Windows. That is memory usage. Linux is far more efficient at handling memory than Windows is. Even Vista with its SuperFetch technology still hasn’t got it right yet. Windows is still too much hard disk bound to be ever able to realise its true speed potential. It still leaves too much memory free that could be cached and runs its caching procedure at inopportune times as well as trying to swap memory out at any and every opportunity. Linux on the other hand uses memory like it should be used. Virtually all of the available memory is used for both programs and disk caching. Fast changing temporary files are written to virtual directories mounted in memory. Swap disks are only used when needed and how aggressively those swap disks are used can be set in a simple configuration file.
For example Linux Kubuntu runs fine on a Pentium III 733Mhz with 512MB of ram. There is no way that Vista will work on this machine. Even XP is a pig on it.
What does this mean to the average consumer PC user? Most computer users are not likely to install a Linux OS on their desktop PCs. However, when choosing a hosting server for your website, Linux servers are the more efficient and give you the most bang for your buck. Also, there is a plethora of enterprise quality open source (FREE) software for Linux servers, whereas licensing for comparable Windows software often costs thousands.
