Hello People,

I always read that Linux is slower with startup compared to Windows 2000/XP.

I have two computers one an older (Celeron 1.3Ghz socket 370) computer which runs Fedora Core 2, and my newer computer (Prescott 3.4Ghz socket 478) running Windows 2000.

If I boot both computers at the same time, the Linux computer is much faster then my Windows computer?

If both computer running the Windows computer is much faster (huh 3.4Ghz) but with regular web browsing and a bit text editing the Linux computer can keep up with the Windows computer.

My question is, is my Windows computer slow or is my Linux computer “fast” (it not suppose to be less memory, less CPU speed)

With kind regards,

Richard

I dunno. Here's how I look at it:

Linux: Hypothetical startup time: 90 seconds. Average restarts per month: 1
Windows: Hypothetical startup time: 30 seconds. Average restarts per month: 75

Doing the math, I think Linux definitely comes out ahead

But seriously, startup time is largely influenced by how much junk is getting loaded when you boot up. You might be able to look through the laundry list of services, daemons, and other stuff that Linux is starting when you boot, and cut some of it out to speed things up. Using a lightweight (non-KDE, non-Gnome) window manager makes a big difference too. KDE can take 15 or 20 seconds just to start itself; fluxbox can be up in about 2 seconds.

In the interest of fairness, you can do the same for Windows

When all you're doing is browsing web sites and editing files, your computer is not exactly running at 100% usage. Most of the time is spent waiting on either the network or the user. If you want to see your nice P4 outperform your celeron, have it encode a movie, or trace a scene with Povray. Length of the boot sequence or browsing web pages aren't really good ways to compare two operating systems, *especially* on such disparate hardware and software configs.

That's what I was thinking. A fresh install of XP might be fast but give me a week and it'll be a slug. Just logging on and off takes a while in XP after you install many apps.

If you manage your system startup, you won't have that problem. My XP install has been running for over 6 months, and still boots and logs in under 20 seconds (assuming I log in ASAP). Of course, I disable all the fisher price theme stuff, as well as unwanted services.

On the flip side, set your linux box to load as much crap as some windows users do (I want to scream sometimes, when I see a Win98 user wondering why their computer is slow to start with forty tray icons inching their way across the start bar), and you'll find it has speed issues at startup too.

Other things can affect it too, for example, I used to only have 256 MB of RAM, and XP took a long time to load, and when I logged in took approximately forever to fully load everything (and mind you, very little was starting, probably 5 tray apps at most), but Linux loaded mega fast, partially because I start in RL 3, but even logging in a running startx (since I use IceWM) didn't take much time either. However, when I got another 512 stick, Windows started MUCH faster, however still a bit slower than Linux does for me. And if I cut out netatalk, it'd launch much faster.

So, I'd have to say, Windows start up depends A LOT more on system resources, but when you get down to it, you can make both OSs launch fast or slow, depending on what you're doing with it.