Ubuntu catching up to Windows

[swiftlinuxcreator]

When people rant about the new Ubuntu, it's all about the new Unity interface. I haven't tried Unity, because it doesn't work for me in VirtualBox, so I've only seen the new Ubuntu with the backup GNOME setup.

What I notice the most is the bloat. Even with 2 GB of RAM, Ubuntu feels sluggish even though LMDE with GNOME feels fast with only 512 MB of RAM on the same computer. Even Xubuntu didn't feel faster than Ubuntu with GNOME. The old Ubuntu was roughly even with Windows XP in speed and hardware requirements. Given that the new Ubuntu is considerably heavier, I think Ubuntu has finally caught up with Windows. Windows XP is the last Windows OS I have significant experience with. How does the new Ubuntu compare to Windows 7 and Windows Vista in terms of speed and hardware requirements? I think this may be the first time in history that a Linux distro has been as heavy as the current version of Windows.

I know that FreeGeek uses Ubuntu. I hope that the organization is considering switching to something else give the questionable Unity interface and the bloatware of the new Ubuntu.

I know there is still more work to be done, but I'm hoping that LMDE eventually becomes the main edition of Linux Mint. The speed difference between the Debian base and the Ubuntu base is far greater than the GNOME vs. Xfce vs. LXDE difference. LMDE with GNOME is much lighter and faster than Ubuntu-based Mint 11 with LXDE.

A fully stabilized LMDE would be a boon for FreeGeek, as it would provide the user-friendliness of the old Ubuntu in a lighter package. Thus, FreeGeek would be able to install LMDE on older computers that are too slow for the new Ubuntu.

We're already seeing Linux Mint attracting Ubuntu users. With its lightness, user-friendliness, and large repository, a fully stabilized LMDE would attract users from other distros as well.

[linfidel]

In terms of speed, Windows will always have an advantage for GUI, since it writes directly to the hardware layer, and doesn't need to support other window managers, etc, like X-windows. X-windows has a disadvantage of being a client/server system, too.

But then, after adding anti-virus, etc, to Windows, it loses some of its advantages (but not all).

But I'm wondering about your issues with Ubuntu vs LMDE. Are you comparing apples to apples - ie, Compiz running on both with the same drivers and applications? I don't see why the "bloat", which is mostly just the size of the disk image, would make such a difference in speed. If you don't need some of the stuff running in Ubuntu, you can disable them. My problem with Debian was that it was always a hassle to get things I wanted to work. For a server or very basic work machine, it would be fine.

I used Ubuntu for years, and recently installed Mint because I don't like the Unity GUI. But I use Compiz for certain of its features, mostly multiple desktop support and ease of handling a lot of open windows (I do a lot of web programming, and often need to have editor windows, multiple browsers, bash windows, etc). Compiz makes it easier with things like showing all the virtual desktops in one screen.

[swiftlinuxcreator]

I'm not sure if Compiz was running in Ubuntu, Ubuntu-based Mint, or LMDE. I'm not sure what factors cause the Ubuntu bloat. I don't give a hoot about those fancy Compiz effects - I just want the user interface to be easy to work with. The latest version of Windows I have substantial experience with is XP. My primary distros before my recent conversion to LMDE were Damn Small Linux, Puppy Linux, and antiX Linux.

While I'm sure Ubuntu could be lighter with some tweaks, that wouldn't be of much good for somebody scraping along on 512 MB and can't even execute those tweaks because Ubuntu is too slow to begin with. I've tried Xubuntu, and it doesn't feel faster than Ubuntu. I know Lubuntu is substantially lighter, but I'm sure the new Lubuntu is heavier than the previous versions.

I've tried out Ubuntu 11.10 today in VirtualBox, and it's still SLOW with 2 GB of RAM. I'm in the process of installing it just to see if it's faster post-installation. Unity works, but I don't like it. The nice thing about Ubuntu is that it makes me appreciate LMDE, antiX Linux, and Puppy Linux instead of taking them for granted.

[gsmanners]

I had some fun with this "bloat" thing a while back. I once tried installing a minimal (command line) Ubuntu 8.04 with just openbox. That used about 80M of memory after a fresh reboot to the "desktop," but it was pretty limiting. I have a couple gigs of RAM, so I decided to just settle for Xubuntu. The latest Xubuntu 11.10 would use somewhere around 200M after a reboot, which is okay. My current Debian Squeeze+Xfce uses about 140M after a reboot. I could get that usage down, but then I'd just be using around 300 to 400M just from using Firefox err Iceweasel. Compare all this to Windows, and it's roughly like running Windows XP.

[linfidel]

I don't really understand why you would want to even use Ubuntu (or Mint) when there are many nice distros that are very small. And since Ubuntu is using Unity with no recourse to gnome, it seems, why even try it with a small system?

I'd say the disk size doesn't matter considering how cheap hard drives have become, but I was in the market for a new drive, and found out they've gone up considerably lately; probably just temporary, though. But it's hard to get by with just 1 TB of disk space! I don't even have room to back up my Windows VM.

[addegsson]

Actually I find it funny that people call ubuntu as bloated, sluggish and slow. Right now I'm using Ubuntu 11.10 on my 2gb laptop and it performs fantastic. The stock Unity 3d use about 228mb while Unity 2d use 200mb, both 3d and 2d looks and performes awesome. It's modern, user friendly and fast. I'm really enjoying the 11.10 Unity experience.

[driekus]

In terms of speed, Windows will always have an advantage for GUI, since it writes directly to the hardware layer, and doesn't need to support other window managers, etc, like X-windows. X-windows has a disadvantage of being a client/server system, too.

But then, after adding anti-virus, etc, to Windows, it loses some of its advantages (but not all).

I run Linux and Windows side by side and that is definitely not my experience. Linux Mint 11 wipes the floor speed wise on my computer.
Windows gets very bloated very quickly.

[gagmani]

Well ubuntu is catching up windows in every department.See how similar is the Unity bloatware to window taskbar aligned to left.

[podagee]

ubuntu speeds compared with windows??ubuntu by far leaves windows behind.windows is bloat bloat bloat....after playing with ubuntu/linux distros i get really impatient with how windows operates...slllooooowwwwww.i think for a better experience with linux distros you should have 1gb ram or more.with 512mb,whether windows or linux, it is not that quick.1gb offers more speed and usability for multi-tasking.with that you would notice the speed difference.

[atomictaco]

I have to agree with the original poster. Ubuntu caught up with windows a long time ago. This may not be the case if you're one who runs the latest and greatest hardware, but for the average user I feel Ubuntu has failed miserably in one aspect of what Linux used to be about and OS that ran fast and smooth and was very stable. When Vista was first released my mother bought a new computer, I Installed Ubuntu on it and it was a dog. Now I run older equipment, cant afford newer stuff since I was laid off and I have been searching for a windows replacement. Current machine is a 1.8 Pentium class with 64mb AGP video card, 80 Gb HD, and 1.5 GB RAM. I had XP running on it great with all of the "bloat" as people refer to it (AV, Office, Virtualbox, and quite a bit of various software) and it ran quite smoothly. Found an old Ubuntu 10.10 CD figured I would try it out. After install you would have thought this machine was a 800 Mhz Celeron with 256 Mb of Ram. I am currently running LinuxMint 11 and it does almost as good as Windows XP, but still lags a little. I used to listen to people rave about how much faster linux was than Windows, but I do not hear it as often any more. Seems like most major distro's have actually become significantly more bloated out of the box than windows with AV and all the factory software manufacturers tack on these days.

[KBD47]

Xubuntu runs perfectly on my desktop computer with 756mb ram and a 2x cpu. On my netbooks Mint Debian is perfect, especially with Xfce or LXDE desktops. Ubuntu/Mint runs a bit slower, and warmer, and some udev thing eats up my cpu. I found a fix for it but something to be aware of with certain laptops.
I really hope Mint Debian gets more love, if it does it would have no problem taking the place or competing head on with the main Mint distro. I'm running 3 Mint Debian installs with repositories set to Stable. I don't think any distro can beat that, with backports it's both up to date and Stable as can be.
KBD47