| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ASUS Eee PC 901 / Intel Atom: Linux Distribution Comparison (Phoronix)ASUS Eee PC 901 / Intel Atom: Linux Distribution Comparison (Phoronix)Posted Sep 25, 2008 13:06 UTC (Thu) by alfille (subscriber, #1631)Parent article: ASUS Eee PC 901 / Intel Atom: Linux Distribution Comparison (Phoronix)
What a strange review. They tested a number of performance benchmarks, like ray tracing, database access,... I kept thinking their tools were better suited to comparing different hardware rather than operating system distributions.
At the end, they make a comment that really gets to the heart of the eee experience:
"Aside from the performance, there are a number of other factors that play into which Linux distribution is best for the Atom hardware and netbooks/nettops. Among these are the optimized user-interfaces, such as Ubuntu's Netbook Remix or Ubuntu MID Edition 8.04, and which distributions supply the best support for the onboard components."
(Log in to post comments)
ASUS Eee PC 901 / Intel Atom: Linux Distribution Comparison (Phoronix) Posted Sep 25, 2008 18:53 UTC (Thu) by jmnovak (subscriber, #48627) [Link]
"I kept thinking their tools were better suited to comparing different hardware rather than operating system distributions."
And yet, several times they display a factor of two difference in performance with various tests, which was surprising to me; I wouldn't have expected that much difference between the distros.
I do wish they had compared bootup times, and out-of-the-box driver support. That's the main issue that has me hesitating on replacing the distro on my Acer Aspire One; I'm not too keen on some of the configuration of the Linpus distro, but my alternative is to spend a bunch of time tweaking the defaults (and risk having them wiped by an update), or to blow it all away with a new distro that possibly won't boot as quickly or support all the hardware. [The Plumbers Conference work on fast booting is encouraging in this regard, if the main distros adopt those findings...]
--John N.
ssd performance Posted Sep 26, 2008 5:52 UTC (Fri) by deleteme (guest, #49633) [Link]
Especially disk transfers at 6MB/s on Mandriva and Fedora, compared to 16MB/s using Xandros.
ssd performance Posted Sep 29, 2008 13:02 UTC (Mon) by holstein (subscriber, #6122) [Link]
16 vs 6 : looks like a typo to me.
ssd performance Posted Oct 6, 2008 11:39 UTC (Mon) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
The '901 has two SSDs, one larger and slower than the other. So if the distributions use them differently they may get different results of this order.
|
|
||||||||||||