In general, I think it's more important to decide based on VMS functionality and ease of use, before limiting choices based on OS.
For example, most VMS software runs only on Windows, so requiring Linux would knock out ~90% of VMSes immediately (including Milestone XProtect, Genetec, Avigilon, OnSSI, etc., etc.).
Regarding performance, it is hard to test specifically since most VMSes don't support Linux, but we have heard some anecdotes of Exacq (one of the few to run on Windows and Linux) running somewhat faster on Linux.
Thanks Sir John.
I accidentally clicked funny.. sorry.
I think if Linux vs Windows were really an issue (and I agree that the OS should not be the primary consideration), I'm not sure that performance would be much of a differentiator. And any OS-based difference would be overshadowed by (or could be easily compensated with) the PC hardware itself.
I've always thought of the advantage of Linux for these kinds of systems was in creating an appliance which does not require OS-level administration.
However the market has pretty clearly shown that the OS is not a critical factor in the success of these products, despite all the hoopla about total cost of ownership, security, etc etc in years past. The fact is so many organizations have a Windows infrastructure so incorporating yet another Windows box or software application is just normal.
If an IP camera ran Windows instead of Linux I think engineers would think that was funny but I don't think the market would care as long as it worked well.
If you want ease of use with something that most people are familiar with then definitely use Windows. You can install other software such as camera setup utilities that aren't available for Linux. Also it is much easier to remotely access the desktop through software like Logmenin that isn't available for Linux either. The Windows OS is just easier to manage for us since everybody is already familiar with it. How many techs out there are familiar with opening up terminal and doing programming manually? Simple things in Windows are tedious on a Linux machine.
The only time we use Linux is when we need to go on the cheap and use a low powered Linux box. I guess the OS has less overhead and can run better on low powered hardware saving money on the processor and also the OS which is free. As for stability I would imagine Linux to be more stable of the 2 but in reality I have dozens of systems out there on each platform and they seem equally stable. As for performance, Exacq's website shows better performance in storing the video but lesser performance in displaying it on machines with equal hardware.
For just a few dollars more than that if you are on the cheap it would make sense to just buy a $500 PC and put your own 4TB drive in it and install some licenses...done!
It's crazy but I have people that just started small and simple but added cameras along the way who are running 12-20 and one almost 30 cameras on a cheap COTS PC. Amazingly enough they are running pretty trouble free. My typical call is internet loss.
The one that the clients IT department supports.
I believe that Linux is faster at storing data, but is not so good at displaying video. When using servers in the comms room and clients out in the field, this would be fine. But running the client and server on the same PC would see some limitation in display FPS.
See below storage rates then local display FPS rates.
Another question, in case of public bidding , if Company A proposed a windows based solution while Company B offered Linux based , do Company B already have an upperhand (much lower cost) ?
Most windows require higher specs while linux can run smoothly on a lower specs. am i right?