PDA

View Full Version : is ubuntu and linux getting heavy?



arkara
October 17th, 2007, 10:55 AM
ubuntu releases a verison every six months right?
does this makes ubuntu heavier and heavier?

for example will ubuntu 6.06 and 7.04 and 7.10 consume the same amount of ram just after the install?

will ubuntu become harder for our pc's to run in the next years?
if so to what extend?

Sef
October 17th, 2007, 11:10 AM
ubuntu releases a verison every six months right?

Yes, right.


does this makes ubuntu heavier and heavier?

Use more memory? 512 mb ram has done well on Ubuntu.


will ubuntu become harder for our pc's to run in the next years?

Ubuntu runs faster for me now (on Gutsy than on Feisty.)

cogadh
October 17th, 2007, 01:52 PM
Why would it become "heavier"? Each new release just updates everything to the latest major version (generally speaking) and may add a few new features and tweaks (like Gutsy's desktop search, screen config tool, etc.). Sure, if you want to use all the bells and whistles that come with Gutsy you might need a little more horsepower in your computer, but you don't really need to run things like Compiz Fusion to get a fully functional desktop.

I've been running Ubuntu since Breezy on the same computer and although I did upgrade the RAM on that system from 512 to 1024, I certainly didn't have to do that for Ubuntu's sake. It's not like Windows, which requires you to double your RAM with each new release. An OS shouldn't have to do that just to be functional.

undine
October 17th, 2007, 01:55 PM
My laptop only has 512MB of RAM and Gutsy runs at a very decent clip on it indeed.... and that's with compiz-fusion and a lot of other 'bells and whistles.'

derekr44
October 17th, 2007, 01:57 PM
ubuntu releases a verison every six months right?
does this makes ubuntu heavier and heavier?

for example will ubuntu 6.06 and 7.04 and 7.10 consume the same amount of ram just after the install?

I think you're still thinking with a Windows mentality :) I have to catch myself sometimes...

I've seen the same RAM and CPU usage through 3 releases (this being the fourth).

dasunst3r
October 17th, 2007, 02:06 PM
While there are a few things I don't need (e.g. Bluetooth), it only takes me a few minutes to take out. This sort of modularity is what I like in Linux. I am currently testing Tracker to see if it's really something that's beneficial. If it isn't, it's going to get disabled.

floke
October 17th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Ubuntu may (or may not) be getting heavier

See here

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/14/2014212&from=rss

But Linux?

Linux is not Ubuntu!

/etc/init.d/
October 17th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Ubuntu will never get heavier in size because it will only ever be one CD. Any bloat you add later is your own.

RAM requirement is a different issue, but I run Ubuntu 7.04 (and previously Edgy and Dapper) fine on 512 MB, as I do with XP. Try that with Vista.

Kowalski_GT-R
October 17th, 2007, 02:33 PM
I think you're still thinking with a Windows mentality :) I have to catch myself sometimes...



same here!

FredB
October 17th, 2007, 02:42 PM
First Ubuntu release (3 years ago) ate 1,8 Gb on hard drive as a blank install.

Ubuntu Gutsy eat about 2,3 Gb... 3 years, and only 0.5 Gb more... More heavy ? Really ?

Onyros
October 17th, 2007, 02:47 PM
I have Gutsy tweaked so that I boot Ubuntu to a Fluxbox environment using only 49MB of RAM.

Or to a GNOME environment using 100MB of RAM.

If you don't tweak it, things like Tracker (one of Gutsy' new features) may bog you down a little bit, other than that you can always make what you want of your distro.

I bet that most of the complains regarding performance in Gutsy are derived from the inclusion of Tracker. It takes a lot to index when it first runs, and also spins your hard drive like crazy after you boot, so it may give you a false sense of overall sluggishness.

In my upgrade, it was the first daemon I removed. Instantly.

ticopelp
October 17th, 2007, 04:30 PM
It's Linux, not Windows. Upgrades aren't necessarily synonymous with bloat. :KS

Even if it were true, you could always install Damn Small Linux or Puppy.

jrusso2
October 17th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Yes, right.



Use more memory? 512 mb ram has done well on Ubuntu.



Ubuntu runs faster for me now (on Gutsy than on Feisty.)

Of course it gets heavier and heavier. When I first started using Linux it would easily run on a Pentium with 32 mb of ram. And with KDE it ran well on 64 mb.

arashiko28
October 17th, 2007, 04:47 PM
I don't think so, I have this laptop for 3 years now, I thought that it was just impossible to burn a DVD, use MSN, Word and make a presentation at a time. This baby runs at 1.30MHz Intel Celeron M and 512MB of RAM, I thought it was fine for study but lowsy for entertainment. I have 5 months now, full on Ubuntu, and I can do all this stuff, now, compiz fusion will eat my 32MB video card, but I can still use it with no problems, right now I'm on beryl, but hey, try to run vista in this PC...

My point is that what really eats you RAM, like a game, or video card, you don't use it always, and those are the things that consantly, to bring the customers a more real image, need to have nice hardware to support them, not the OS. Mine has never even gotten further of 450MB, and I've tested it doing everthing at a time, using 4 desktops and no complaints.

-grubby
October 17th, 2007, 04:48 PM
have you looked at vista recently?

vishzilla
October 17th, 2007, 05:08 PM
I dont think so...my found no difference whatsoever. as far as the apps go, the apps have improved a lot. take a look at OO.o the loading times have improved and I have heard good reviews on 2.3. with hardware getting cheap, the minimum requirements have increased IMO

dptxp
October 17th, 2007, 05:14 PM
It's Linux, not Windows. Upgrades aren't necessarily synonymous with bloat. :KS

Even if it were true, you could always install Damn Small Linux or Puppy.


puppy is getting fatter with each new release.