Ubuntu 6.06 vs. 8.04 vs. Xubuntu.

[sd00_2002]

I recently switched from Ubuntu 6.06 to 8.04. Memory usage for the OS/GUI in 8.04 is about twice the memory usage of 6.06, and everything runs a lot slower. I switched to Xubuntu (8.04). This reduced memory usage by about 10%, and everything seems to run just as slow. (And I like the Xubuntu GUI even less than I like GNOME - which I never really cared for.) As a user, I cannot tell the difference between 6.06 and 8.04. What is 8.04 doing that requires such a large increase in system resources?

[TBOL3]

Automation I would assume.

Before, I would have to do a tone of configuring to get much of anything to work, but not, poof, it works out of the box. Also, if you have the desktop effects enabled, they require a tone of memory (not as much as aero, but still a tone).

[tjwoosta]

i was also disapointed when upgrading from 7.10 to 8.04

8.04 is a major resource hog compared to previous ubuntu releases

after i saw how slow 8.04 was i decided to try debian

debian with gnome is much lighter then ubuntu (its even lighter then 7.10 was)

[cmay]

i wonder the same thing. but i found that if it is a matter of getting the nice things from ubuntu in a lighter desktop enviroment then one can use a gobuntu which i am starting to like better than the ubuntu standard iso or textbased installer and build it your self. that way it should not take so much on ressurces. i use a ubuntu derivative called crunch bang linux on my asus Eee and it is very , very fast compared to ubuntu but it has all the same advantages other than it it uses open-box.
for something light as desktop envirmoment then use lxde or open-box or jwm as desktop. the most light but still very usable distro is the debian etch or lenny xfce cd1 that is also lightning fast on older computers. or the baseinstaller iso and build it all almost from scratch.

[StevenHarper]

I recently got given a 366mhz PII (256MB ram), I tried Xubuntu 8.10 on it and was disappointed.

I finally found a perfect solution : Crunch Bang linux.

http://crunchbang.org/

its based on Ubuntu and has most of the essential packages (Network manager, Firefox etc) infact by default it has many more lite version of apps you could need.

It works as a live CD and I highly recommend you try it:

Btw it uses Openbox instead of gnome, it's different but not too much

Steve


Just spotted the previous poster uses Cruchbang too -> its gunna be big for old hardware.

[andrewabc]

Anything below pentium 4 512mb ram should not run default ubuntu (in my opinion). It will run slow. Try a customized version of ubuntu or other distros meant for slower computers.

On my old computer I am currently using puppy linux. Regular ubuntu did run ok on it but the wireless stopped working well so I tried another distro.

[Twitch6000]

Anything below pentium 4 512mb ram should not run default ubuntu (in my opinion). It will run slow. Try a customized version of ubuntu or other distros meant for slower computers.

On my old computer I am currently using puppy linux. Regular ubuntu did run ok on it but the wireless stopped working well so I tried another distro.

I agree with this statement 100%

if you are running less then 512mb ram and nothing better then a pent 4, then use something light.

Reason being, because just like Windows and Mac with every upgrade the specs go up a bit.

However their are Linux distros still meant for old machines aswell :).

[doorknob60]

Go with Debian, or if you feel up to it, Arch. Debian overall is pretty similar to Ubuntu but without all the unnecesary bloat, so it would be a good choice.

[Grant A.]

Go with Debian, or if you feel up to it, Arch. Debian overall is pretty similar to Ubuntu but without all the unnecesary bloat, so it would be a good choice.

Off topic, but what happened here?



Re: 香港六合彩-一码连续公开