Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7. In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users, but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real- world tests? We put Ubuntu 8. 1. Windows Vista and Windows 7 through their paces in both 3. Ubuntu faces the new contender.

Benchmarked: Ubuntu vs Vista vs Windows 7. In depth: A lot of people have been chattering about the improvements Windows 7 brings for Windows users, but how does it compare to Ubuntu in real- world tests? We put Ubuntu 8. 1. Windows Vista and Windows 7 through their paces in both 3. Ubuntu faces the new contender.

And, just for luck, we threw in a few tests using Jaunty Jackalope with ext. When Windows users say that Windows 7 is easier to install than ever, what do they really mean? When they say it's faster, is it just in their heads, or is Microsoft really making big strides forward? And, perhaps most importantly, when Linux benchmarkers show us how screamingly fast ext. These are the questions we wanted to answer, so we asked Dell to provide us with a high- spec machine to give all the operating systems room to perform to their max.

About Windows 7 SP1 MUI Language Packs. MUI stands for Multilingual User Interface. There are full (100%) and partial (80% according to Microsoft) MUI language packs. Programm stand alone that install automatically Visual Studio 6.0 / Visual Basic 6.0, included MSDN Library and Service pack 6 on Windows Vista, 7 and 8. Here are the latest articles published on Tom’s Hardware. See the latest news, reviews and roundups and access our tech archives. Two additional editions of Windows Vista have been released for use by developers of embedded devices. Microsoft lists the system requirements for these editions as.

Our test machine packed an Intel Core i. GHz with hyperthreading and 8. MB of L3 cache. It also had 6. GB of RAM, plus two 5. GB of hard drives with 1. MB of cache. The tests we wanted to perform for each operating system were: How long does each operating system take to install? How much disk space was used in the standard install?

Windows 7 vs Windows Vista comparison. Windows 7 is the latest version of Windows. Released in 2009, Windows 7 has been universally praised for being much better than.

How long does boot up and shutdown take? How long does it take to copy files from USB to HD, and from HD to HD? How fast can it execute the Richards benchmark? We also, just for the heck of it, kept track of how many mouse clicks it took to install each OS. Before we jump into the results, there are a few things we should make clear: To ensure absolute fairness, install time was measured from the moment the computer was turned on until we reached a working desktop. The same computer hardware was used for all tests, and all operating systems were installed fresh for this article.

1. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is an update to Windows Vista that addresses key feedback from our customers. SP1 addresses specific reliability and performance issues.
2. While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such.

We used the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, simply because Windows 7 was provided only in this flavour. We used the Windows Vista SP1 disk to accurately reflect what users are likely to experience todaay. Our Windows 7 version is the open beta that Microsoft issued recently. It is probable Windows 7 will be at least this fast in the final build, if not faster. For Ubuntu 9. 0. 4 we used the daily build from January 2. All operating systems were installed using standard options; nothing was changed. After checking how much space was used during the initial install, each operating system was updated with all available patches before any other tests were performed.

Windows Vista (codenamed Longhorn) is an operating system by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, tablet PCs and.

Our journalistic friends have informed us that Windows Vista (and, presumably, Windows 7 too) has technology to increase the speed of the system over time as it learns to cache programs intelligently. It also allows users to use flash drives to act as temporary storage to boost speed further. None of our tests are likely to show this technology in action, so please take that into account when reading the results. The filesystem, boot, shutdown and Richards benchmarks were performed three times each then averaged.

And, of course, there's the most important proviso of all: it is very, very likely that a few tweaks to any of these operating systems could have made a big difference to these results, but we're not too interested in that - these results reflect what you get you install a plain vanilla OS, like most users do. Install time. Amount of time taken to install, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better. At first glance, you might think that Ubuntu clearly installs far faster than either version of Windows, and while that's true there is one important mitigation: both Windows Vista and Windows 7 run system benchmarks part- way through the installation to determine the computer's capabilities.

A bit of a flippant one - just how many mouse clicks does it take to install an OS with the default options? Surprisingly, Ubuntu 8. Windows 7. NB: hopefully it's clear this doesn't make Ubuntu 8. Measured in, er, mouse clicks; fewer is better.

Disk space used immediately after a fresh install. Measured in gigabytes; less is better. While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard. NB: Vista failed to detect the network card during install, leaving us without an internet connection until a driver was downloaded on another computer. Bootup and shutdown.

Boot up time was also measured from the moment the machine was turned on, and the timer was stopped as soon as the desktop was reached. The Dell box does take about 2. POST, but to avoid questions about when to start the timer we just started it as soon as the power button was pressed. Amount of time taken to boot, from machine being turned on to working desktop. Measured in seconds; less is better. The 3. 2- bit version of Windows 7 is the only one to beat the one- minute mark, but that advantage is quickly lost in the switch to 6. Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.

Amount of time taken to shutdown, from button being clicked to machine powering off. Measured in seconds; less is better. Windows lags a little behind the Linuxes, with 6. Windows Vista. IO testing.

To test filesystem performance, we ran four tests: copying large files from USB to HD, copying large files from HD to HD, copying small files from USB to HD, and copying small files from HD to HD. The HD to HD tests copied data from one part of the disk to another as opposed to copying to a different disk.

For reference, the large file test comprised 3. MB in total; the small file test comprised 2,1. MB in total. Each of these tests were done with write caching disabled to ensure the full write had taken place. Amount of time taken to copy the small files from a USB flash drive to hard disk.

Measured in seconds; less is better. Amount of time taken to copy the small files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better. Let us take this opportunity to remind readers that Windows 7 is still at least nine months from release. Amount of time taken to copy the large files from a USB flash drive to hard disk.

Measured in seconds; less is better. Amount of time taken to copy the large files from one place to another on a single hard disk. Measured in seconds; less is better.

With the exception of Windows 7 while copying larges files around a hard drive, Windows generally suffered compared to Linux in all of these tests. Obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks, but these figures show a drastic performance difference between the two. Notes: Vista and Windows 7 really seemed to struggle with copying lots of small files, but clearly it's something more than a dodgy driver because some of the large- file speeds are incredible in Windows 7. Both Vista and Windows 7 seemed to introduce random delays when deleting files. For example, about one in three times when deleting the files from our filesystem benchmark, this screen below would appear and do nothing for 2. However, this wasn't part of our benchmark, so isn't included in the numbers above.

This was very annoying. Richards benchmark.

Notes: This was done using the cross- platform Python port of Richards. For reference, Ubuntu 8. Python 2. 5. 2, Ubuntu 9. Python 2. 5. 4, and we used Python 2. Windows tests. Even though the 6.

Linux and Windows don't look that far apart, we have to admit to being very impressed with the Windows tests - the deviation between tests was just 3ms on Vista, and 5ms on Windows 7, compared to 2. Linux. Amount of time taken to execute the Python Richards benchmark. Measured in milliseconds; less is better. It's clear from that graph that having a 6. OS can make a real difference in compute- intensive tasks, but it's not too pleasing to see Windows pip Linux to the post in nearly all results. Switching to ext.

All the Linux benchmarks above were done using ext. Well, not a lot. Boot, shutdown and filesystem tests for Ubuntu 9. Measured in seconds; less is better.

Although there's no difference in shutdown speed, the boot time using ext. We can probably discount the the USB to HD tests simply out of error margin, which leaves the HD to HD tests, and there we find a very healthy boost: 3. Our tests also showed an improvement in the large file test, but it's not as marked. Conclusions. Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext.

Sadly it looks like Ubuntu 9. Linux boxes will either have to fiddle with the default options, have patience, or jump ship to Fedora - which will be switching to ext. You should follow us on Identi.

Memory Limits for Windows and Windows Server Releases (Windows)This topic describes the memory limits for supported Windows and Windows Server releases. Limits on memory and address space vary by platform, operating system, and by whether the. IMAGE. For more information, see. What is 4. GT. Limits on physical memory for 3. Physical Address Extension (PAE), which allows.

Windows systems to use more than 4 GB of physical memory. Memory and Address Space Limits.

The following table specifies the limits on memory and address space for supported releases of Windows. Unless. otherwise noted, the limits in this table apply to all supported releases.

Memory type. Limit on X8. Limit in 6. 4- bit Windows. User- mode virtual address space for each 3. GBUp to 3 GB with IMAGE. Starting with. Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (SP1), the paged pool can also be limited by the. Paged. Pool. Limit registry key. Windows Home Server and Windows Server 2.

MBWindows XP:  4. MB3. 84 GB or system commit limit, whichever is smaller.

Windows 8. 1 and Windows Server 2. R2:  1. 5. 5 TB or system commit limit, whichever is smaller. Starting with. Windows Vista with SP1, the nonpaged pool can also be limited by the. Non. Paged. Pool. Limit. registry key value. Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2. Windows XP:  2. 56 MB, or 1.

MB with 4. GT. RAM or 1. GB, whichever is smaller (address space is limited to 2 x RAM). Windows 8. 1 and Windows Server 2. R2:  RAM or 1. 6 TB, whichever is smaller (address space is limited to 2 x RAM). Windows Server 2. R2, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2. RAM up to a maximum of 1.

GBWindows Vista:  4. RAM up to a maximum of 1. GB. Windows Server 2. Windows XP:  Up to 1. GB depending on configuration and RAM. System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory)Limited by available kernel- mode virtual address space or the.

System. Cache. Limit registry. Windows 8. 1 and Windows Server 2. R2:  1. 6 TB. Windows Vista:  Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space. Starting with. Windows Vista with SP1, system cache virtual address space can also be limited by the. System. Cache. Limit. Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2. Windows XP:  8. 60 MB with.

Large. System. Cache. GT; up to 4. 48 MB with 4. GT. Always 1 TB regardless of physical RAM. Windows 8. 1 and Windows Server 2.

R2:  1. 6 TB. Windows Server 2. Windows XP:  Up to 1 TB depending on configuration and RAM. Physical Memory Limits: Windows 1. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows 1. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Windows 1. Enterprise. 4 GB2.

TBWindows 1. 0 Education. GB2. TBWindows 1. Pro. 4 GB2. TBWindows 1. Home. 4 GB1. 28. GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2. Version. Limit on X6. Windows Server 2. Datacenter. 24 TBWindows Server 2.

Standard. 24 TBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows 8. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows 8. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Windows 8 Enterprise. GB5. 12 GBWindows 8 Professional. GB5. 12 GBWindows 8.

GB1. 28 GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2. Limits greater than 4 GB. Windows assume that PAE is enabled. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Limit on IA6. Windows Server 2.

Datacenter. 64 GB1 TBWindows Server 2. Enterprise. 64 GB1 TBWindows Server 2. HPC Edition. 12. 8 GBWindows Server 2. Standard. 4 GB3. 2 GBWindows Server 2. Itanium- Based Systems. TBWindows Small Business Server 2. GB3. 2 GBWindows Web Server 2.

GB3. 2 GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Vista. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Windows Vista Ultimate. GB1. 28 GBWindows Vista Enterprise.

GB1. 28 GBWindows Vista Business. GB1. 28 GBWindows Vista Home Premium. GB1. 6 GBWindows Vista Home Basic. GB8 GBWindows Vista Starter. GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Home Server. Windows Home Server is available only in a 3.

The physical memory limit is 4 GB. Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2. R2. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2. R2. Limits. over 4 GB for 3. Windows assume that PAE is.

Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Windows Server 2. R2 Datacenter Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)1 TBWindows Server 2. R2 Enterprise Edition.

GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)1 TBWindows Server 2. R2 Standard Edition. GB3. 2 GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2. Service Pack 2 (SP2)The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2.

Service Pack 2 (SP2). Limits. over 4 GB for 3. Windows assume that PAE is. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Limit on IA6. Windows Server 2. Service Pack 2 (SP2), Datacenter Edition.

GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)1 TB2 TBWindows Server 2. Service Pack 2 (SP2), Enterprise Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4.

GT)1 TB2 TBWindows Server 2. Service Pack 2 (SP2), Standard Edition. GB3. 2 GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2. Service Pack 1 (SP1)The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2. Service Pack 1 (SP1).

Limits over 4. GB for 3. Windows assume that PAE is enabled. Version. Limit on X8. Limit on X6. 4Limit on IA6. Windows Server 2.

Service Pack 1 (SP1), Datacenter Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4.

GT)X6. 4 1 TB1 TBWindows Server 2. Service Pack 1 (SP1), Enterprise Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)X6. 4 1 TB1 TBWindows Server 2. Service Pack 1 (SP1), Standard Edition. GB3. 2 GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2. Limits over 4. GB for 3. Windows assume that PAE is enabled.

Version. Limit on X8. Limit on IA6. 4Windows Server 2. Datacenter Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)5. 12 GBWindows Server 2.

Enterprise Edition. GB(1. 6 GB with 4. GT)5. 12 GBWindows Server 2. Standard Edition. GBWindows Server 2. Web Edition. 2 GBWindows Small Business Server 2. GBWindows Compute Cluster Server 2.

GBWindows Storage Server 2. Enterprise Edition. GBWindows Storage Server 2. GBPhysical Memory Limits: Windows XPThe following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows XP. Version. Limit on X8.

Limit on X6. 4Limit on IA6. Windows XP4 GB1. 28 GB1. GB (not supported)Windows XP Starter Edition. MBN/AN/APhysical Memory Limits: Windows Embedded. The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Embedded. Version. Limit on X8.

Limit on X6. 4Windows XP Embedded. GBWindows Embedded Standard 2. GBWindows Embedded Standard 7.

GB1. 92 GBHow graphics cards and other devices affect memory limits. Devices have to map their memory below 4 GB for compatibility with non- PAE- aware Windows releases. Therefore. if the system has 4.

GB of RAM, some of it is either disabled or is remapped above 4. GB by the BIOS. If the memory. X6. 4 Windows can use this memory. X8. 6 client versions of Windows don’t support physical memory above.

GB mark, so they can’t access these remapped regions. Any X6. 4 Windows or X8. Server release can. X8. 6 client versions with PAE enabled do have a usable 3. GB) physical address space. The limit that. these versions impose is the highest permitted physical RAM address, not the size of the IO space.

That means. PAE- aware drivers can actually use physical space above 4 GB if they want. For example, drivers could map the.