Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Huy Nguy » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Hi,

I was wondering if anybody has tested and compared the speed of XFree
environnment versus MS Windows NT or 95, with some typical graphics or
office applications.
Can you help or point me to the right url ?

Bye.

--
Huy (Paris, France)
Please remove .xxx in email address to reply

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Victor Wagn » Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:00:00


: Hi,

: I was wondering if anybody has tested and compared the speed of XFree
: environnment versus MS Windows NT or 95, with some typical graphics or
: office applications.
: Can you help or point me to the right url ?

This question was addressed in discussion in comp.lang.tcl July-August
1997.

For tk application difference is about four times (in favor of X of
course).

You can obtain inverse result if you would compare some software which
uses hardware 3d acceleration under Windows and Mesa under Xfree
(QuakeGL, for example).

It is large question how to make benchmarks of X apps running over
network. I would say, that X running over ethernet or ppp would be
infinitely faster than windows, becouse you simply cannot run
Windows program remotely. But there are such things as Citrix Winframe,
pcAnyWhere and so on.

BTW, have anyone compared VNC with X protocol?
: Bye.

: --
: Huy (Paris, France)
: Please remove .xxx in email address to reply

--
--------------------------------------------------

Institute for Commerce          Office:7-(095)-333-2022
Engineering                     Home: 7-(095)-135-46-61
Programmer                      http://www.fe.msk.ru/~vitus

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Bob Nixo » Tue, 21 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> Hi,

> I was wondering if anybody has tested and compared the speed of XFree
> environnment versus MS Windows NT or 95, with some typical graphics or
> office applications.

I've done some timing tests and find that while X, regardless  of FVWM,
KDE or what ever, once running will outperform it's 'general desktop'
windows -95 counterpart, with the one very glaring exception of Disk
performance.  Linux has horrible 'single user' disk performance. I don't
know if Windows NT suffers from the same 'multi user' based disk
compromises but IMO it soils linux's otherwise superior performance.
Second loads or 'cached disk' access are very good but first load times
are awful, using my K6 200 & UDMA 8.4GB Maxtor & 128MB's of ram.

Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of my
slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either Linux
RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2,  it takes 15-20 seconds to load the same
software. Cached or subsequent loading is nearly identical for both OS's.
Yes I do know that UDMA is not supported below kernel 2.1 but It's really
more related to how and where the different OS stores the files on the
HD. Win-98 & OSR2 (norton or Hurricane 98), do most used and registry
flags, to help optimize things for single user load time performance.

Sorry but this is one of my few beefs about linux.

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Grzegorz Grudzinsk » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> I've done some timing tests and find that while X, regardless of
> FVWM, KDE or what ever, once running will outperform it's 'general
> desktop' windows -95 counterpart, with the one very glaring
> exception of Disk performance.  Linux has horrible 'single user'
> disk performance.

[...]

Quote:> Second loads or 'cached disk' access are very good but first load
> times are awful, using my K6 200 & UDMA 8.4GB Maxtor & 128MB's of
> ram.

> Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of my
> slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either Linux
> RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2,  it takes 15-20 seconds to load the same
> software.

[...]

I think you are wrong in your claim. From my experience the Linux file
system (and disc access strategy) give much better performance than
the WinNT file system or DOS FS or whatever. Both in case of first
access and any subsequent cache reads.

Netscape loading time, however, does not that much depend on disc
access speed but on the fact that it is a (apparently) poorly designed
X Window application. Try some experiments with file access (not with
X11 application startup times) and you will see the difference.

Best,
-- Grzes
Grzegorz Grudzinski     Institute of Informatics, Warsaw University

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Mark Tranchan » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00




> > Second loads or 'cached disk' access are very good but first load
> > times are awful, using my K6 200 & UDMA 8.4GB Maxtor & 128MB's of
> > ram.

> > Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of my
> > slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either Linux
> > RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2,  it takes 15-20 seconds to load the same
> > software.

> I think you are wrong in your claim. From my experience the Linux file
> system (and disc access strategy) give much better performance than
> the WinNT file system or DOS FS or whatever. Both in case of first
> access and any subsequent cache reads.

I've noticed this too. Even bloated MS-Office apps pop up fairly
snappily on my 486DX4/120 with 16MB RAM, whereas quite simple X/KDE apps
can take a much longer time to appear, even with no swapping occuring.

As a result, Win95 *appears* to be quicker than X, although as Grzegorz
says, overall HD performance is far better under Linux. hdparm -T gives
3MB/s (Quantum 3.2GB EIDE drive at PIO mode 3), which is representative
of real world use; Win95 system monitor never exceeds 1.5MB/s.

Mark.

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Stefaan A Eecke » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00






>> > Second loads or 'cached disk' access are very good but first load
>> > times are awful, using my K6 200 & UDMA 8.4GB Maxtor & 128MB's of
>> > ram.

>> > Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of my
>> > slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either Linux
>> > RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2,  it takes 15-20 seconds to load the same
>> > software.

>> I think you are wrong in your claim. From my experience the Linux file
>> system (and disc access strategy) give much better performance than
>> the WinNT file system or DOS FS or whatever. Both in case of first
>> access and any subsequent cache reads.

> I've noticed this too. Even bloated MS-Office apps pop up fairly
> snappily on my 486DX4/120 with 16MB RAM, whereas quite simple X/KDE apps
> can take a much longer time to appear, even with no swapping occuring.

> As a result, Win95 *appears* to be quicker than X, although as Grzegorz
> says, overall HD performance is far better under Linux. hdparm -T gives
> 3MB/s (Quantum 3.2GB EIDE drive at PIO mode 3), which is representative
> of real world use; Win95 system monitor never exceeds 1.5MB/s.

Notice that the _apparent_ startup times of applications under
Windows is reduced through the use of splash screens.

OTOH, the slower startup times of applications under Unix (nothing
Linux-specific about this) could be caused by the very flexible (read
complex) dynamic library search algorithm, combined with the
slower directory access on Unix file systems (as compared to
FAT). /usr/lib tends to be very crowded on most Linux
boxen, and using a lot of symbolic links doesn't speed
up file access either.

One should also not forget that Netscape is a statically
linked Motif application, and hence suffers from serious
bloat (last time I checked its size was in excess of 4Mb).

--
Stefaan
--

PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
  "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas
   are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
                                                -- Howard Aiken

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by subha » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00




Quote:> Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of
> my slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either
> Linux RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2, it takes 15-20 seconds to load
> the same software.

Netscape 4.0.x for Linux is a super-bloated app. It is statically
linked to Motif which is one inefficient bloat of a GUI
toolkit. Netscape 3 is faster. I tried Qtscape (which is Netscape
5.0-alpha with Motif replaced by Qt GUI toolkit ).  It starts up
amazingly quick. Although the code is alpha, it did not crash after 15
minutes of use. The binary is downloadable from
http://www.troll.no/qtscape/download.html
 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Mark Tranchan » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> OTOH, the slower startup times of applications under Unix (nothing
> Linux-specific about this) could be caused by the very flexible (read
> complex) dynamic library search algorithm, combined with the
> slower directory access on Unix file systems (as compared to
> FAT). /usr/lib tends to be very crowded on most Linux
> boxen, and using a lot of symbolic links doesn't speed
> up file access either.

I've wondered about this, and have tried modifying the order in which
libraries are searched for, based on the output of a few strace's. Is
there any standard advice on the best ways to optimize the setup?

Mark.

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by FoulDrag » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>I've noticed this too. Even bloated MS-Office apps pop up fairly
>snappily on my 486DX4/120 with 16MB RAM, whereas quite simple X/KDE apps
>can take a much longer time to appear, even with no swapping occuring.

Astonishing.
I can boot into runlevel 3 on an ext2 partition in about the same time as to
start DOS 7.02 and Windows 3.10.  X starts in about ten seconds [because I load
all that KDE stuff.  olvwm cuts it to ~4]
That's on a 486/66 o/c 80, 20M RAM, 3000M hard drive which doesn't show more
than 2M/s on DOS.... gotta try that hdparm.

Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii  [~73% dragon pure!]
users.aol.com/fouldragon
DC.DG.mfsRL--sVR++h--CDm ad++$-d++WL++*Fr-L2.8mBSue---g++i+++U--
The libel-against-draconinity liability counter :> 4 990 405 204 694....

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Bob Nixo » Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00:00





> > > Second loads or 'cached disk' access are very good but first load
> > > times are awful, using my K6 200 & UDMA 8.4GB Maxtor & 128MB's of
> > > ram.

> > > Netscape 4.04, under windows OSR2 (norton 3.0 optimized), is one of my
> > > slowest loading large apps, at about 4 -5 seconds. Under either Linux
> > > RedHat 5.0 or Caldera base 1.2,  it takes 15-20 seconds to load the same
> > > software.

> > I think you are wrong in your claim. From my experience the Linux file
> > system (and disc access strategy) give much better performance than
> > the WinNT file system or DOS FS or whatever. Both in case of first

Did you read my post? I'm not using NT. 95(fat32) is generally faster than NT.

Quote:> > access and any subsequent cache reads.

Here's what the 'hdparm -T, -t', -I output looks like.  Under 95 I see 5.7RAW
reads and up to mid 30MB/sec on cached reads. Win-95 OSR2 using UMDA mode 2 is
faster but not by a hell of a lot.
---------------start data--------------------------------->
hdparm -T /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   64 MB in  2.27 seconds =28.19 MB/sec
 hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffered disk reads:  32 MB in  8.40 seconds = 3.81 MB/sec

 hdparm -I /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

 Model=aMtxro8 48008D                          , FwRev=ANXV9102,
SerialNo=8L500NA6
 Config={ Fixed }
 RawCHS=16278/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=20
 BuffType=3(DualPortCache), BuffSize=256kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?0?
 DblWordIO=no, maxPIO=2(fast), DMA=yes, maxDMA=2(fast)
 hdparm -T /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   64 MB in  2.27 seconds =28.19 MB/sec
 hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffered disk reads:  32 MB in  8.40 seconds = 3.81 MB/sec

 hdparm -I /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

 Model=aMtxro8 48008D                          , FwRev=ANXV9102,
SerialNo=8L500NA6
 Config={ Fixed }
 RawCHS=16278/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=20
 BuffType=3(DualPortCache), BuffSize=256kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?0?
 DblWordIO=no, maxPIO=2(fast), DMA=yes, maxDMA=2(fast)
 CurCHS=16278/16/63, CurSects=16408224, LBA=yes, LBAsects=16408224
 tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA modes: mword0 mword1 *mword2
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, PIO modes: mode3
mode4CurCHS=16278/16/63, CurSects=16408224, LBA=yes, LBAsects=16408224
 tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA modes: mword0 mword1 *mword2
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, PIO modes: mode3 mode4
----------------end---------------------------------------->

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> I've noticed this too. Even bloated MS-Office apps pop up fairly
> snappily on my 486DX4/120 with 16MB RAM, whereas quite simple X/KDE apps
> can take a much longer time to appear, even with no swapping occuring.

> As a result, Win95 *appears* to be quicker than X, although as Grzegorz
> says, overall HD performance is far better under Linux. hdparm -T gives
> 3MB/s (Quantum 3.2GB EIDE drive at PIO mode 3), which is representative
> of real world use; Win95 system monitor never exceeds 1.5MB/s.

> Mark.

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Huy Nguy » Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:00:00


Hi,


>Netscape 4.0.x for Linux is a super-bloated app. It is statically
>linked to Motif which is one inefficient bloat of a GUI

I also gave up using Netscape 4 and installed the 3 version which is
(a little) less bloated. Thanks for the info about Qtscape, I'll try
it some days.

Back to the speed question : I wonder if some of the utilities in Red
Hat written with Tcl/Tk, Python or Perl are not a bit disappointing in
terms of speed. May be it misled the first time users who then find
that X is slow.

Also I think the comparison with W95 is a bit unfair ; perhaps it's
better to compare with NT which requirements and possibilities are
more on a same level than Linux/Xfree. And startup of NT needs more
seconds than for NT isn't it ?
--
Huy (Paris, France)
Please remove .xxx in email address to reply

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Bob Nixo » Mon, 27 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> Hi,


> >Netscape 4.0.x for Linux is a super-bloated app. It is statically
> >linked to Motif which is one inefficient bloat of a GUI

> I also gave up using Netscape 4 and installed the 3 version which is
> (a little) less bloated. Thanks for the info about Qtscape, I'll try
> it some days.

> Back to the speed question : I wonder if some of the utilities in Red
> Hat written with Tcl/Tk, Python or Perl are not a bit disappointing in
> terms of speed. May be it misled the first time users who then find
> that X is slow.

Maybe you didn't see the whole thread but all my postings
reference the fact that linux-x vs Win-95 is pitting a single
user system against a networking type OS, as in NT. However the
issue of disk performance is the IMO the biggest shortcoming of
Linux vs even NT. All the bench marking that I've seen show NT
considerable faster with  =<10 networked stations. As the number
of network connections increases linux catches up or exceeds NT.
This is of little consolation to the casual desktop user, who is
expecting linux the blow away Win-95 in terms of performance on
equivalent machines. It clearly does not.

Could linux be set up to better optimize disk performance for
single user desktop operations?

BTW, The Netscape 4.0X argument is silly. Win-95/Nt's version has
the same or greater code bloat as the Linux version. 17Megs vs
about 12Meg and that's compressed.

In these days of fast CPU's, the differences between video & job
or task switching is generally way beyond any visual perception.
However, differences in disk performance, stick out like a sore
thumb.

Quote:> Also I think the comparison with W95 is a bit unfair ; perhaps it's
> better to compare with NT which requirements and possibilities are
> more on a same level than Linux/Xfree. And startup of NT needs more
> seconds than for NT isn't it ?

PS. Don't get me wrong. I really like linux but unless we bring
out it's weaknesses, it won't get any better. Here's a short list
and I could care less about networking capabilities, other than
one shouldn't have to edit a dot file to change things.

1) Poor single user disk performance.
2) Poorly integrated GUI's. (getting better, thanks to KDE)
3) Crappy looking fonts. needs TT or other anti aliasing fonts.
4) Can't Use anything but older mainly HP ink jet printers.
Caldera is better than RedHat is this respect.
5) Weak sound support. RedHat's not bad but Caldera quits at
SB16.
6) Unless your video card is = or older than 1 year, no support.
7) Peripheral Scanners, removable drives, TV cards and other
multimedia stuff is virtually unsupported, (out of the box) so to
speak.
8) DHCP and PPP support are included but getting them working is

9) Documentation is geared for and written by programmers, with
many assumptions or 'sub out' to other docs, taken for granted.
10)Too much security stuff for single desktop users. This could
be easily set in RedHat and others distributions.
11)Many tout the fact the Linux is free and this is true, unless
you want any serious printer or scanner precompiled support.
12 I don't do a lot of games but it seems that this is an area
that Linux could really shine but it doesn't, other than
hackneyed or also ran stuff. Doom is about three years old now
guys.
13. Other than StarOffice, $Corel/Wordperfect$, no serious Office
software.
14. Future packages should included functional Wine or Wabbe, out
of the box, like OS2. Macs.
15. No Fat32 support yet, although there are patches. RH 5.1
maybe?

With cheap released X86 BE-OS in the stores a couple of months
away, Linux could get shuffled back to you pure nerds, real fast
:)

 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by jed » Mon, 27 Apr 1998 04:00:00




[deletia]

>Could linux be set up to better optimize disk performance for
>single user desktop operations?

>BTW, The Netscape 4.0X argument is silly. Win-95/Nt's version has
>the same or greater code bloat as the Linux version. 17Megs vs
>about 12Meg and that's compressed.

>In these days of fast CPU's, the differences between video & job
>or task switching is generally way beyond any visual perception.
>However, differences in disk performance, stick out like a sore
>thumb.

        I keep on hearing about this but never experiencing
        this. While operations may actually finish later than
        they would on a Win95/NT I wouldn't notice as Linux
        is not has heavily impacted by that disk IO as either
        95 or NT. They NEED to be faster so they're not a
        doorstop for quite so long.

Quote:

>> Also I think the comparison with W95 is a bit unfair ; perhaps it's
>> better to compare with NT which requirements and possibilities are
>> more on a same level than Linux/Xfree. And startup of NT needs more
>> seconds than for NT isn't it ?

>PS. Don't get me wrong. I really like linux but unless we bring
>out it's weaknesses, it won't get any better. Here's a short list
>and I could care less about networking capabilities, other than
>one shouldn't have to edit a dot file to change things.

>1) Poor single user disk performance.
>2) Poorly integrated GUI's. (getting better, thanks to KDE)

        They should remain that way. KDE looks nice but scratching
        it under the surface makes at least this gui junky wanna
        flee quickly. I shudder at the thought of commercial
        software vendors latching onto KDE and then making their
        wares dependent upon it.

Quote:>3) Crappy looking fonts. needs TT or other anti aliasing fonts.

        TT is available actually.

[hardware support - whine to the vendor]

>8) DHCP and PPP support are included but getting them working is


        dhcp & ppp are both point and click in redhat.
        If  ANY complications arise, redhat quickly
        easier/simpler to deal with than Win95.

Quote:>9) Documentation is geared for and written by programmers, with
>many assumptions or 'sub out' to other docs, taken for granted.
>10)Too much security stuff for single desktop users. This could
>be easily set in RedHat and others distributions.

        This is precisely what makes the system more stable
        than its Windows counterparts.

Quote:>11)Many tout the fact the Linux is free and this is true, unless
>you want any serious printer or scanner precompiled support.

        Sane and Ghostscript seem to support quite a nice
        number of devices actually. Sane supports any non
        'offbrand' printer that's available retail in my
        area (non parallel).

        However, any problems in this area fall squarely
        on the shoulders of vendors. Buy only supported
        products and then tell the appropriate people where
        their money is going.

Quote:>12 I don't do a lot of games but it seems that this is an area
>that Linux could really shine but it doesn't, other than
>hackneyed or also ran stuff. Doom is about three years old now
>guys.

        This is another vendor whine.

Quote:>13. Other than StarOffice, $Corel/Wordperfect$, no serious Office
>software.

        There are only 3 'serious' Windows office packages.
        Just how many more were you expecting of Linux?

Quote:>14. Future packages should included functional Wine or Wabbe, out
>of the box, like OS2. Macs.
>15. No Fat32 support yet, although there are patches. RH 5.1
>maybe?

>With cheap released X86 BE-OS in the stores a couple of months
>away, Linux could get shuffled back to you pure nerds, real fast

        Since when has technical superiority helped a commercial
        competitor of Microsoft?
 
 
 

Xfree vs MS Windows speed ?

Post by Bob Nixo » Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> A LOT! snipped

Same here.

Quote:> > 6) Unless your video card is = or older than 1 year, no support.

A fluke, probably an older chip set,

Quote:> The Matrox Millenium II AGP is a lot less than a year old,
> yet it is supported by XFree
> Are these the same users that are frequently asking themselves whether
> their computer is safe when they're logged on the internet from
> their home PC's?

Possibly :) Actually RedHat allows a non password logon.

Quote:> > 12 I don't do a lot of games but it seems that this is an area
> > that Linux could really shine but it doesn't, other than
> > hackneyed or also ran stuff. Doom is about three years old now
> > guys.

> In case you haven't noticed, Quake is out and Quake2 too! Both of
> which run in Linux :)

You mean a small Quake II demo is out for linux..

Quote:> > 13. Other than StarOffice, $Corel/Wordperfect$, no serious Office
> > software.

> Call me curious, but if you don't consider Corel WordPerfect a serious
> Office Software I would very much like to see what fits into that
> category with you.

Yes but it's actually more expensive than the MS stuff. Guess you
missed the $$. StarOffice is great though.

Quote:> For the third time I point you to the development kernels

I think you missed the whole point. Alpha development kernels are
strictly for the 'Guru's'. My whole premise was based on built in
software <rpm's, or tgz. binaries >, that work on the popular
packages, without going on an easter egg hurt for libcxxxxx, or
going through ump* failed compilation attempts.

Command line kernel compiling or any compiling for that matter is
not the direction that is going to 'woo' desktop or casual users
to the linux platform. You and many others here are looking at
these issue's with your programmer or hacker blinders on. Linux
could be a viable and cheap competitive solution to MS$ but not
with the BS elitist attitude that your exhibiting. Actually using
a Computer to do something as opposed to those who spend
countless hours tweaking /ect/hosts or trying the latest alpha
development kernel despite potential hours to days of disastrous
reinstalls, just doesn't make any sense, to someone wanting a
nice stable GUI that runs lots of useful software. Get the point,
I hope.

Quote:

> > With cheap released X86 BE-OS in the stores a couple of months
> > away, Linux could get shuffled back to you pure nerds, real fast
> > :)

> At least we'll be happy! :)

Yah, now your true colors shine through the fog <g>

          Bob Nixon

http://www.veryComputer.com/