I created a Ubuntu install on a USB Flash stick and it was a lot slower than running it from the Live CD.
Are you saying W8 runs properly from the same USB device?
I'm not sure what's wrong with your hardware.
On my PC:
Ubuntu 10 LTS (64bit) ~30s Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) ~30s Windows 8 (64bit) ~35s Windows 7 (64bit) ~45s Windows XP ~55s
Last edited by lehnerus2000; 13 Jul 2013 at 22:04.
The point I'm trying to make is that Linux is getting bloated compared to what it was in the past. Even by your own figures there's no real reason to install Linux to get a huge increase in speed because it just isn't there.
I agree booting from a USB is pathetic even more, even Puppy Linux is a bit slow to boot from a USB.
Please people I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything, just telling you what I found on an old Notebook. I'm sure if you put all OS on an SSD on a brand new PC the difference would be virtually zero.
Like I said I'll keep playing around with a few more Distros over the next few weeks just to see what's going on in the Linux world, so far I'm still pretty amazed with Puppy an old favourite of mine and it's certainly climbed up the charts. It's ability to find my wireless networks effortlessly is pretty amazing for an OS that's just 160MB.
So what is the big difference about? NADA here! When I hit the power button on the case I usually step out for a bit to take care of something before getting glued to the screen for any amount of time. While not using a stop watch I simply observed the boot times by seeing how long it takes for each to get past the loading drivers part and finally arriving at the desktop with 7 and Linux but now hold the enter key down at the 8 Welcome screen to arrive at the desktop.
As a rule a Linux distro usually ubuntu or Puppy, Darn Small, Zenwalk, or other are typically the smaller releases while Mandriva(formerly Mandrake), Fedora, Knoppix Live dvd(once was a live cd years back), Linux Mint(was larger then ubuntu from the get go), and others simply have grown in size over the years as more things have been inclluded in each newer release. The Linux Mint Debian 2010 then updated 2011 release comes prepackaged with 200 app options where you update the apps and desktop while the core is a one time release there. For a larger dvd sized distro with a large number of prepackaged apps it does quite well booting off a flash drive or while on the second internal drive here for a time.
The main item of concern however has never been which boots faster but "just what" you would use each OS for! For Linux flavors having a look at the other OS as well as data recovery tools when live on disk or usb flash drive has it's own purposes.
For Windows on the other hand most obviously realize that's where the pc games are marketed for despite open source apps like Wine or some VM ware. The gamers want the frame rates as well as fast and responsive OS while in most cases despite being the faster, lighter OS various Linux distros are now only beginning to see things like Steam for Linux. You still have to fall back on Windows! We won't count desktop apps since every OS has them to begin with.
However, Linux Distros still uses a fraction of the HDD space that Windows does:
OS + Programs (excluding Swap, Page File and Hibernation) Size Windows XP (32 bit) ~5 GB Linux Mint (MATE) (64 bit) ~6 GB Windows 7 (64bit) ~19 GB
The only time I worry about boot time is when my PC takes longer than usual to boot.
Also it's easier to measure boot times, than it is to measure program start up times.
The times I listed are the usual boot times, but they are also wildly variable (and I don't mean as the result of updates):
Boot Time Spread
Ubuntu 10 (64 bit) 25s - 60s Windows 7 (64 bit) 29s -96s
On my PC, multi-OS programs generally run smoother (faster?) on Linux, than they do on Windows (e.g. Firefox and GIMP).
5gb is now starting to get tight even for ubuntu. Puppy being one of the smallest still fares well for that however. Recommend at least 8gb for Linux Mint Debian probably 5-6gb for the regular Linux Mint releases not having the install options for all those apps wrapped up in those releases.
Still waiting to give the FireFox OS a lookover however. I might get to that one sometime!
Because I use tablets a lot I'm used to having instant on, so boot times are important to me, and because I don't use the PCs that much anymore, I don't leave them on all day or even on sleep. Windows 8 on an SSD is almost instant, it takes longer to type in the password than Bootup.
I think that's why I like Windows 8 so much, I actually spend a lot more time on there now than I did on Windows 7, for me at least it's easier to get around and I'm used to apps. I think I read somewhere that people that use tablets like Windows 8 more because of the similarities in working.
I bought four licences because its given my older PCs a new lease on life, and for my HTPC'S it's absolutely ideal. I tried XBMCUbuntu on one, boy was that a mistake and I LOVE XBMC.
The gui on 8 was designed specifically for Tablets to begin with being borrowed from Windows RT the OS for the new MS Surface Tablets. When using a hand held device or gadget constantly you get accustomed to that platform. This is why 8 works for you but you only to some extent.
The real problem with 8 however is taking that Tablet gui and calling it a desktop release for those of us who don't use Tablets or IPads, smart phones regularly. Even laptops regardless of version tend to see the desktop appear faster since OEMs block out from view the actual post screens with the factory logo screen. You still have to shut down the same way however not simply pressing the on/off button to avoid seeing disk errors appear over time.
The thing I found which actually effects the boot time isn't even the OS you are running Windows or other but what? The hardwares! Try jumping from a 2 or 2.2ghzz single core cpu into a 3.2ghz dual or quad core cpu as well as jumping up from 2gb to 4, 8, or now 16gb of memory on just a mechanical drive. The OS will suddenly load up like lightning in comparison!
Since we are bringing in Linux into the equation I thought I would add this one about what people are saying is better for Tablet? With embedded OSs I might tend to agree! Mark Shuttleworth: Serious people are saying Ubuntu is better than Windows 8 on tablets | ZDNet
Last edited by Night Hawk; 01 Mar 2013 at 20:55. Reason: Additional information
I've got it running on two 1.6 GHZ Dual Core Atom HTPCs and it still boots up pretty quick, a lot quicker than W7, and everything is just generally snappier. I can watch HD videos streamed from YouTube with no problems or Movies from my NAS through XBMC.
The other two PCs both run at 3GHZ, just old dual cores, and with Windows 8 on them there's just no need to upgrade. I suppose I'll upgrade one day, but at the moment they're both fast enough for me.