Better OS for computer chess ?

Is Linux better for computer chess then Windows ?If yes why and which Linux OS is best ?

Windows XP Pro 64 bit is best for computer chess.

Windows 7 x64!

What is the question?
What means the best?

i use WIN 8.1 Pro and it works fine - i know that on WIN 7 oder WIN XP the speed of engine are
little bit higher....2 - 5 % ?!

i don´t know, if for example this compination works well: Haswell core with WIN XP !?

My thinking is, use modern Software if you use modern hardware.

best wishes.

use newest, newest all, newest computer, newest OS, newest engine...

Nathanael Russell wrote:

Windows XP Pro 64 bit is best for computer chess.

You do realize that XP is over 13 years old? Please let me know of a company that continues to support a 13 year old operating system.

Windows 8.1, far cleaner, faster and smoother than the old clunky, bloated Windows 7.

The only reason windows is better for chess is because that is the OS most of the computer chess developers happen to have, and most of the audience. It's a bit of circular catch 22. Relatively few people use Unix systems, so relatively few developers program for it, because most of the software is windows only. We Mac and Linux users are beginning to get some love in the gaming department (thanks to steam) Perhaps we will see more chess for Unix with it.

That said, I say Linux is the best as it gives the user the most power at their fingertips for less overhead. Personally I find xubuntu is incredibly lightweight yet still has all the community and power of regular ubuntu. But there are a lot of great options.

darklord wrote:

The only reason windows is better for chess is because that is the OS most of the computer chess developers happen to have, and most of the audience.  It's a bit of circular catch 22.  Relatively few people use Unix systems, so relatively few developers program for it, because most of the software is windows only.  We Mac and Linux users are beginning to get some love in the gaming department (thanks to steam) Perhaps we will see more chess for Unix with it.

That said, I say Linux is the best as it gives the user the most power at their fingertips for less overhead. Personally I find xubuntu is incredibly lightweight yet still has all the community and power of regular ubuntu.  But there are a lot of great options.

Which one is Faster, Windows or Linux?

Nathanael Russell wrote:

Windows XP Pro 64 bit is best for computer chess.

- Information for Windows speed
- SCCT games
- Sedat Candaz Machine : QX9650 @ 3.81 GHz
- Windows XP Pro x64 is approx.10 % faster than Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (for chess)

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 :

Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 324 kns
Critter 0.90 x64 T4 = 4.340 kns
Umko 1.1 x64 T4 = 1.926 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 8.625 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.444 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 12.301 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 347 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 12.386 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 =10.617 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.386 kns
Umko 1.1 x64 T4 = 2.675 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 313 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.597 kns
Critter 0.90 x64 T4 = 4.180 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 10.444 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 9.880 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 316 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 10.512 kns

Total = 86.888 kns

Windows XP Professional x64 :

Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 356 kns
Critter 0.90 x64 T4 = 5.060 kns
Umko 1.1 x64 T4 = 2.859 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 11.427 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.631 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 10.811 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 367 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 14.871 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 11.092 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.533 kns
Umko 1.1 x64 T4 = 3.106 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 376 kns
Tornado 4.4 x64 T4 = 3.513 kns
Critter 0.90 x64 T4 = 4.977 kns
Crafty 23.4 PS x64 T4 = 12.945 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 4.966 kns
Rybka 4 Exp 61 x64 T4 = 369 kns
Spark 1.0 x64 T4 = 9.611 kns

Total = 96.875 kns
[Hide]The results on win 7 were always same even after all those hints/recommendations about 'How to optimize/speed up Windows 7 for better performance'
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Optimize-Windows-7-for-better-performance
http://www.computingunleashed.com/speed-up-windows-7-ultimate-guide-to.html
[/Hide]

That could be because windows 7 is a lot more resource intensive as an OS then xp.  But you also have driver issues with xp 64bit in that many developers skiped over it. :\  Windows 8 boots up incredibly fast compared to either, which could have no baring in terms of performance, but how does it compare?  What about linux? How about compared to Xubuntu with XFCE gui which should be incredibly lightweight and not taking up resources away from the engine.

darklord wrote:

That could be because windows 7 is a lot more resource intensive as an OS then xp.  But you also have driver issues with xp 64bit in that many developers skiped over it. :\  Windows 8 boots up incredibly fast compared to either, which could have no baring in terms of performance, but how does it compare?  What about linux? How about compared to Xubuntu with XFCE gui which should be incredibly lightweight and not taking up resources away from the engine.

In my opinion, LINUX has the potential to outcast both Windows and Apple; However, the lack of time and manpower to further develop the operating system has rendered it rather useless from a desktop perspective. Because of this, very few updates to LINUX are available. Windows, on the other hand, is being updated repeatedly and always becomes more and more streamlined both in functionality and power.

Nice Article!
Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_windows81_ubuntu&num=1

Nathanael Russell wrote:

In my opinion, LINUX has the potential to outcast both Windows and Apple; However, the lack of time and manpower to further develop the operating system has rendered it rather useless from a desktop perspective. Because of this, very few updates to LINUX are available. Windows, on the other hand, is being updated repeatedly and always becomes more and more streamlined both in functionality and power.

I'm sorry I don't follow. The Linux kernel is updated constantly, in such a way it is difficult for all distros to keep up. As for individual distros, they are updated constantly too.  Ubuntu, for instance, has a 6 month release cycle.   Different apps and libraries in each distro are updated daily.  If there is one thing I dislike about linux is that I am constantly swamped in updates evrey time I open my computer.  But unlike windows, they make sure it doesn't interfere with your work. It installs quietly in the background, no sudden restart necessary, and doesn't make anything unstable.  And, if necessary, will be finished on the next reboot which takes as long as any other reboot as the work has already been done.

darklord wrote:

Nathanael Russell wrote:

In my opinion, LINUX has the potential to outcast both Windows and Apple; However, the lack of time and manpower to further develop the operating system has rendered it rather useless from a desktop perspective. Because of this, very few updates to LINUX are available. Windows, on the other hand, is being updated repeatedly and always becomes more and more streamlined both in functionality and power.

I'm sorry I don't follow. The Linux kernel is updated constantly, in such a way it is difficult for all distros to keep up. As for individual distros, they are updated constantly too.  Ubuntu, for instance, has a 6 month release cycle.   Different apps and libraries in each distro are updated daily.  If there is one thing I dislike about linux is that I am constantly swamped in updates evrey time I open my computer.  But unlike windows, they make sure it doesn't interfere with your work. It installs quietly in the background, no sudden restart necessary, and doesn't make anything unstable.  And, if necessary, will be finished on the next reboot which takes as long as any other reboot as the work has already been done.

In my experience, the operating system is powerful and had improved the user experience, but stills it carry strong lags. It may be updated twice a year, but customer and hardware support could be improved. Forum support is almost non-existent and software applications are limited for Linux use.

Disadvantages of Ubuntu OS
- Ubuntu is very conventional to new technologies.
- It is very perceptive to faults in hardware which makes it less steady as compared to other operating systems.
- There is a little hardware support for Ubuntu OS.
- Difficult to configure modem to start work on internet.
- It is not possible to play the modern games in Ubuntu OS.
- It shows the poor graphics quality and ne have to use emulators to do so that harms the graphics quality.
- Though Linux (Ubuntu) has number of free applications and software available on net, but most of the applications are not found for Linux use.
- Ubuntu is not capable of playing MP3 files by default.
- The forum support for Ubuntu is really very poor. It takes weeks and even months to get our query solved.
- The installation of Ubuntu is one of the major problems. It does not come installed in modern PCs. One needs to install it by himself.
- The drivers support is also absent in most of the cases as compared other operating system.
- Major drawback of Ubuntu is that a user switching from Windows or MAC will not like user experience on Ubuntu and will have difficulty in operating the OS.

Advantages of Ubuntu OS
- Ubuntu is one of the most secured operating system and defines the highest level of security as compared other operating system.
- Ubuntu is an open source OS.
- Ubuntu is most popular Linux operating system.
- Most of the soft-wares in Ubuntu are pre-installed to enhance user experience.
- It is available free of cost.
- 1 GHz x 86 processor (Above Pentium 4) needed too run
- 512 MB Ram needed to run
- 5 GB space must be free on hard drive
- Graphic card with 800 x 600 resolution needed to run

I had a huge statement refuting everything you said point by point, but the dang website logged me out just as I was hitting the post button and I lost everything.   I am not going to put any more effort into this, as clearly you didn't before making your wild statements.  Please use google if you have any questions with your ubuntu install,  if you even indeed have installed it recently.  If you want the ancient and stupidly lossy mp3 codec, click the checkbox for proprietary software on the install cd.  Or install it later.  (again use google) And there is a petty easy to find window to install proprietary drivers. Mostly a case if you need extra ompf for your graphics card. If you can't find it, use google Good luck!

darklord wrote:

I had a huge statement refuting everything you said point by point, but the dang website logged me out just as I was hitting the post button and I lost everything.   I am not going to put any more effort into this, as clearly you didn't before making your wild statements.  Please use google if you have any questions with your ubuntu install,  if you even indeed have installed it recently.  If you want the ancient and stupidly lossy mp3 codec, click the checkbox for proprietary software on the install cd.  Or install it later.  (again use google) And there is a petty easy to find window to install proprietary drivers.  Mostly a case if you need extra ompf for your graphics card.  If you can't find it, use google Good luck!

If you have a problem with me or with what I said, you can certainly shoot me a private message.

No, you're right.  I'm just mad I lost a large post.  I was just keen to set the record straight.  I apologize.

darklord wrote:

No, you're right.  I'm just mad I lost a large post.  I was just keen to set the record straight.  I apologize.

Not a problem. It is clear you are passionate and more knowledgeable about the LINUX operating system, so I am open to your suggestions.

Well, you are far too kind...

In my experience most hardware will run just fine with their open source drivers.  Every computer I put ubuntu on worked, even my old mac.  Granted its a lot easier now then even a few years ago.  Far less hoops to jump. But if you need a proprietary driver most manufactures have one for linux, and you can install it in the proprietary driver window.  I don't think windows is this easy to use as you still have to install most hardware manually anyway.

Internet is real easy to configure for me - click on the wireless symbol, select the network, type in your password and you're good to go.

In terms of support,  I really haven't had any issues that couldn't be solved.  Their forum is so comprehensive a simple google search with the right terms usually yield an answer.  And when I actually had to ask a question I usually got a response in no time.

For software,  there are a lot of great open source projects that do a pretty good job replacing the famous proprietary stuff, and you don't even need linux to run them as they have been compiled for everything else.   But it is true there is more windows software because there are more users.  But the open source library is pretty extensive in ways you don't even quite realize.  Heck OSX wouldn't be what it is if it weren't for UNIX.  Even Windows is looking more unix like with it's users management system lately.
And for everything else.  There is always wine. :) It is by no means a catch all for every bit of windows software, but it really is amazing how well it works for quite a bit with little to no extra work.  For most though there are a lot of quirks and hurdles as it's not actually emulating windows and is applying the program to a completely different environment as best it can.  And then there is a lot of stuff that just can't/won't run.

As for games, you may want to check this out.
http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/
http://www.playdeb.net

If you want a new computer preinstalled with ubuntu it already exists.  They have made partners with dell and I'm sure others.

Really I don't think the learning curve is much more difficult than any other OS, most commonly used things are available right on the get go and if you're use to OSX under the hood, you should find it's way of doing things too difficult.  Like anything, it takes time.  But at the end of the day, if you don't need too, why spend that time?  Unless there is a reason you need to use it, I say stick to what you know best.  That being said, if ubuntu were suddenly thrust into your life,  it isn't really all that dire. :)

Last edited by darklord on Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:43 am; edited 2 times in total

I'll tell you a secret,  I don't actually like Ubuntu.  I really prefer XUbuntu.  The Unity GUI doesn't do it for me.  Seems crazy to center the whole OS around the search function and disregard any sense of organization the end user may want for their stuff.   I believe this has gotten better lately, but with XFCE it is extremely customizable in this regard.  But everything I said still applies.