ran the test seven times on each system, back and forth, and reported what I saw). How could I call this a serious lab test? (I didn’t, and in fact my first words were “this isn’t a rigorous benchmarked lab test yet”).

Windows fanatics always accuse anyone who disputes their claim that Windows Rulz to be brainwashed acolytes of either Linux or Mac, depending. Windows apologists always say that if I would go into the Registry and tweak these 12 settings, Windows will work much better. Mac fanatics will say they knew it first and the Mac does it better anyway.

The fun really came from the few responders who read my post carefully, tested it themselves, and confirmed my quick and dirty test. Several Slashdot members have dual boot machines that run Windows XP and Ubuntu and did the same quick test. Using a dual-boot machine takes out all the hardware variables, like RAM and hard disk speed and the like. In those few reports, they
found the same thing I did: untweaked Ubuntu runs faster than untweaked Windows XP.

Want to know what I found really funny? No one questioned that Ubuntu on an old Pentium 4 machine with 768MB of RAM performed better than Vista running on a brand new Intel Core 2 Duo system running at 3.0GHz with 3GB of RAM. How’s that for a slap at Vista?

The funniest responses? Those who started a conversation about how much more acceptance Linux would get if the word got out it downloads porn faster. And they’re probably right.