Vista SP1 vs Ubuntu Startup

This video was made as a response to a thread on overclock.net about Linux, regarding the startup times for vanilla installations of Vista SP1 and Ubuntu 8.04.

Installation Procedure:
Vista-
1. Vanilla Slipstreamed SP1 Install (32-bit Home Premium)
2. Latest ATI Drivers
3. Latest Windows Updates
4. Enabled Aero
5. SuperFetch disabled (no Linux equivalent was used)
6. Installed Opera

Ubuntu-
1. Vanilla 8.04 Install, 32-bit
2. Latest updates available
3. Enabled ATI drivers in restricted driver manager
4. Enabled Compiz
5. Installed Opera

Test System:
AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (2.0GHz)
Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe
2GB DDR2-800 G.Skill RAM
ATI Radeon HD3850
Western Digital 80GB, 7200RPM HDD

Notes: Although the time from login to desktop was longer for Vista, the majority of the time was spent waiting for the Catalyst icon to show up. In reality, the desktop is usable before this point and Vista actually loads the desktop first. Also, SuperFetch was disabled because Preload was not used with Ubuntu. With SuperFetch turned on (and ample time and usage given to adjust to usage patterns), Opera loads a bit faster. In a real-world scenario, Vista is faster in the application loading and desktop loading tests.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• vista
• ubuntu

[ljscott1990]

No the difference is this is one of the only unbiased videos on youtube that you will see regarding boot up times. Because they are both default installs.

[alltops]

my t.t.d. fully loaded is half the time it took xp32.

[alltops]

Same here, i put it on an ole- pos laptop my kids broke the MS OS and its great with Ubuntu 8.10 plus all the free updates he he he

[tipoomaster]

Just requested a Live CD, the one i burned myself didnt work (probably because of the download accelerator i used). Its pretty sweet that you dont even have to pay shipping!