FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why is internet faster on Linux than Windows





akshar
Why it is often found that using internet in Linux is faster that in widows?

Why is it so? What is Big endian and small endian?
Cyouz
No idea

Try searching the internet
Srs2388
linux is alot lighter would be what I's think it ha less running that involves usage of your bandwidth.... so the less it has using it the faster
thats what I think though I could be wrong
gonzo
its not. Both OSes properly configured are comparably fast in this regard assuming one has broadband
ocalhoun
Linux is better!
This is because it is open-source, and therefore better optimised for what people really want from an OS.

Also, linux is infinitely less likely to be running IE.
jovemac
Is Linux faster? This is highly arbitrary. Linux, especially with
linux 2.6, has low latency. The computer is responsive to my mouse
clicks, and so on. Windows has made similar improvement from their
side. Depending on the application, I'd say that the potential is
about equal in terms of latency. For anybody unaware, latency affects
the 'feel' of your operating system. Does it 'feel' fast. It doesn't
necessarily make it faster. In fact, I'm positive that the latency
patches have a small negative impact on performance. It costs to make
your computer more responsive. So, if we ignore the 'feel' of the
system as being arbitrary or inaccurate, we come to - what is meant by
faster? It can't be the CPU execution speed, because that has to be
equivalent. So, what next? The speed of the file system? Linux gives
many more options than Windows does out of the box, so Linux probably
has an advantage here - assuming that users pick the right file system
for their uses. The speed of the system pager? Assuming the normal LRU
scheme, both should be equivalent, and both have a bottleneck of the
read and write speed of the hard disk.
ocalhoun
linux 2.6?
eh?
Are you referring to the kernel?
jovemac
ocalhoun wrote:
linux 2.6?
eh?
Are you referring to the kernel?


Sorry for the typo... its kernel
fredbert
First, to set things straight, it is Big Endian, Little Endian.

Before I get in to that, I would simply like to say that I agree with the above posters that stated that, GNU/Linux is not going to be faster or slower, depends on what you are running (software wise).

This is an often asked question I believe.

--------

On to the not so often asked question about Big Endian and Little Endian . . .

Both of these have to do with the byte order of how things are stored in a computer. Honestly I can't remember all the specifics or significance of the Big and Little Endian, but I will give some examples.

Big Endian representation of 7 in binary:

0111

Little Endian representation of 7 in binary:

1110

These are things that are way down deep in the 'puter (CPU based) and I would argue that this is not very useful knowledge to the end user. It is completely transparent to the user. 'Talking' between Big and Little Endian 'puters is dealt with by which ever protocol you are using to communicate.

Any more, imho is just TMI. Smile (Unless you are a Computer Sciencist, and if so, why aren't you answering the question!?!?)

In other words, this hurts my brain.

Fredbert

ps-If I am wrong please for the love of knowledge,
post the right answer Smile
solarwind
ocalhoun wrote:
Linux is better!
This is because it is open-source, and therefore better optimised for what people really want from an OS.

Also, linux is infinitely less likely to be running IE.


I agree completly, linux is better! I use Fedora Core 4 and i think that it is the best linux distrobution (running the 2.6x kernel).

And yes, it is software wise. For example, I find that running Mozilla Firefox is quite fast on linux. Also, in my opinion, linux is a MUCH more stable operating system than wndoze.

Opensource owns!
asmlover
linux is not better. It depends on what you need.

If u're interested in the internet-station, stable and concurrently expandable to a server, linux is better

Windows and Mac OS X is more sutable, when u want to play games and watch films
Slammer
I would say they are both 'potentially' as fast for using the net as each other. Just depends how you have them setup and what browser your using. Or if you've got lots of background things using up your bandwidth etc
bdoneck
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, linux is infinitely less likely to be running IE.


LOL highly true hah
kevin
ocalhoun wrote:

Also, linux is infinitely less likely to be running IE.


I got it running on Whine when i was bored one afternoon ^^
David_Pardy
Linux will most likely run faster if the Windows and Linux machines are running identical hardware.

Linux will NOT access the internet faster. A 3ghz computer will NOT access the internet faster than a 133mhz computer, but it will render the webpage faster and the browser interface won't be as laggy, you'll still get all the information within the same period of time.
Liu
To add on to the big endian little endian... it comes into play and something you need to consider if you're working with memory directly. In java coding it's not so much something to worry about since it's all big endian, however in coding like c/c++ it's open. Interpreting how a file should be read or run will be directly affected by your system's endian and what endian the file is.
jgra_2003
para mi definitivamente linux
omeration
hat said, in my experience with hundreds of XP and Linux desktop systems, I'd say, yes, XP does tend to boot faster than some Linuxes. I wouldn't bet on it against, say, Xandros or SimplyMEPIS, but yes, I'm sure it does boot faster than Linspire or SUSE 10.

Of course, give me a few minutes to tweak either one, and I can have either one zipping by XP. But, that's not really the point.

You see, with Linux, I don't have to buy or install anti-virus software or anti-spyware software. Nor do I have to join the "every second Tuesday patch-of-the-month club" or reboot every time I make a significant change to my operating system.

Heck, I can even update my entire GUI without rebooting. Try that with oh, wait -- you can't really get another GUI with Windows, can you?

And, last but not least, in my experience, without any pretense of benchmarking behind it, I find that most applications run just as fast on Linux as they do on Windows.

Thinking of applications, Ou goes on to try to bolster his case by comparing the load time for Microsoft Office 2003 on Windows to OpenOffice.org 2.0 on Linux.

This doesn't measure anything meaningfully. It's a classic case of apples and oranges.

For starters, you're not comparing operating systems at all, you're comparing the loading time of two office suites. How fast they load has a good deal to do with the applications themselves, not with the operating system.

That said, Office does make good use of Windows to load quickly. I, however, don't see this as a good thing at all.

Office loads quickly, because it -- like far too many Microsoft programs -- makes use of Microsoft's built-in integration between its applications and its operating systems using shared libraries, and its eternal confusion between data and programming code found in everything from DDE to OCX to ActiveX.

This is Microsoft's eternal Achilles' heel. By integrating applications and operating systems at a deep level, Microsoft assures that any security hole has the potential to have profound effects on the entire system.

As it happens, Ou and I talked about this very point a few weeks back. His response?

"A lot of those issues have been resolved. IE on SP2 is very protective about ActiveX, and Vista will be even more protective."

Yes, Windows is better than it used to be, but the fundamental flaws that come from an operating system that was never, ever meant to work on a network are still there.

Every month we see it yet again. Just last week, Microsoft finally fixed a hole in Internet Explorer that could be used by remote attackers to execute malicious code.

Guess what? These application holes could maul XP SP2 systems. What a surprise!

If you look closer, you'll see that one of the most important holes starts when, to quote Microsoft, "Internet Explorer tries to instantiate certain COM objects as ActiveX Controls."

ActiveX? Who would have thought of that?

You can trust Windows if you want. I don't.

For me this gets at the real heart of the entire Windows vs. Linux question.

Yes, sometimes Windows may be faster, and sometimes a Windows application will be faster. At other times, a Linux desktop will be faster, or a Linux application will run more quickly. But every day, and every time, Linux provides a more stable and secure desktop.
i_am_mine
On Windows we Now we have an exploit that targets images.No executable to be downloaded or anything at all. All it takes is a load on into your browser.

Internet speed doesn't depend on your box or OS.

Quote:
Also, linux is infinitely less likely to be running IE.


Although you can't rule out IE taking longer, which is probably the culprit.

There was a time when people started hiring Windows hackers for their code knowledge...until they realised it wasn't the kids that were smart...it was Windows that was dumb.

There goes a job opportunity.

For a while there I thought the whole Planet Earth - Unemployment problem could be solved by the Dubugging Dept. at Microsoft.

And then Linux made a comeback on the desktop.

Damnit.
lockwolf
Here is how you go about choosing operating systems based on prefrences (No offense to anyone):

Windows: Grandmas, People with an IQ under 120 and Gamers

Linux: People with an IQ Greater than 120, Buiessness people and people who are paranoid of getting viruses

Macs: Gay People
Liu
lockwolf wrote:
Here is how you go about choosing operating systems based on prefrences (No offense to anyone):

Windows: Grandmas, People with an IQ under 120 and Gamers

Linux: People with an IQ Greater than 120, Buiessness people and people who are paranoid of getting viruses

Macs: Gay People

Putting (no offense) in front of your post doesn't magically make it unoffensive.

You're a very shallow, presumptuous, homophobic fellow aren't yah buddy.
Jack_Hammer
I don't think there would be a major difference (Excaept I do know that windows uses the internet itself, which might be why) plus there might be programs on your windows computer that use the internet without you knowing or viruses, other than that there shouldn'[t be much difference in the internet speed on windows or Linux other than (As above posters have said) linux is not going to be running IE and be using Mozilla or Konquerer which are faster at loading internet pages faster than IE ever will be.
srijit
the codebase in both is completely different..... linux derives from unix, which was used as the backbone of networking. so networking wise things are bound to be better in *nix and bsd's. Windows also has an untidy code. most of it are hack of other working code. I dont believe that WinXP is a complete rewrite from the cround up. Its just improving upon Win2K code. On the other hand, many Linux distros start from scratch, and the kernel itself is highly monitored and regulated.
Also there is a diffrence in the quality of people coding for the love of doing so and others doing it only for the money :p
cnnet
I don't know so much about the OS
clip
yeah, it's really not the OS's. prolly, it's the browsers that makes the difference.

or maybe your running your windows on dial up and your linux at 8mbps connection? Laughing jk! Laughing
druidbloke
Having used both I agree linux is definitely faster on the internet for downloading and browsing, but I dont know why either, and I'd be interested if windows could be configured to be the same.
jongoldsz
Linux is faster because Microsoft isn't secretly installing updates on your computer. Also, I believe that Linux has no viruses, adware and spyware.
DutchManiac
jongoldsz wrote:
Linux is faster because Microsoft isn't secretly installing updates on your computer. Also, I believe that Linux has no viruses, adware and spyware.


Well if thats all true Im going to buy Linux next up, but I first wait for Windows Vista
clip
DutchManiac wrote:
jongoldsz wrote:
Linux is faster because Microsoft isn't secretly installing updates on your computer. Also, I believe that Linux has no viruses, adware and spyware.


Well if thats all true Im going to buy Linux next up, but I first wait for Windows Vista


you don't have to buy a linux OS. It's free
gonzo
gonzo wrote:
its not. Both OSes properly configured are comparably fast in this regard assuming one has broadband


true
Arno van Lumig
Actually, at my place, internet on Linux (SuSE) seems to be slower then on Windows XP, but that's probably becouse It's not configured well...

It should run at the same speed, if both configured well.

Greetz, Arno
gonzo
jongoldsz wrote:
Linux has no viruses


guess again
Related topics
What is your operating system?
Windows XP the best?
linux-windows c/c++ programming
linux windows c programming
Will Windows last forvever?
Dualboot Linux/Windows with XP bootloader
Windows / *nix security Myths ?
Share CPU resource over home network?
How can I share a bandwidth of Internet connection
What do you think about linux ubuntu?
Why people hate Windows?
Windows is freer than Linux
How to... Run Internet Site From Windows Calculator
What's best windows operating system?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.