"As much as we would have liked to see Ubuntu's Lucid Lynx handily beat Windows 7, this was not the case, but to some extent the opposite." That about summarized the conclusion on the *11th* page of an article titled Is Windows 7 actually faster than Ubuntu 10.04? written by the folks over at Phoronix.
I am not against their conclusion whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the way the story is titled. I find it very unfair to title a story this way only to have conducted a series of game tests on the two OS to reach such a conclusion. Would it have been so difficult to title it to reflect the fact that the conclusion is based on a series of tests in a gaming context.
I would be woefully unfair to Windows 7 should I claim Ubuntu 10.04 has more eye candy than the former without making it known afore-hand that I have Compiz running. It should be made clearly known that there is no way Windows 7 can be faster than the Lucid Lynx (yes I am sticking my neck here) in a general purpose context.
Forget all the fancy benchmarks with all those powerful machines that are common only in North America and some parts of Europe. You want to see how fast Windows 7 is as compared to Ubuntu, try installing and running them on a 2Ghz Intel Celeron powered machine with 1GB of RAM. Then you will actually understand which is faster.
Only a minute fraction of both OS users are gamers, so to use gaming as the standard to compare the two OS under such a heading is not so fair and balanced. And to the folks there, please check the banner ads, I could not read some of the paragraphs because the banners had covered them.Sharing is Caring: