Why is Ubuntu bigger than Window XP?

[superarthur]

I don't know if other people has asked it before. I did a quick google search but can't find an answer.
It seems that XP only requires 1.5GB, but Ubuntu requires 3-4GB.
I thought Ubuntu is supposed to be light.
XP is still popular until Windows 7 come out. (XP is better than Vista in many people's opinion. I only used Vista instead of XP because it comes with my Laptop, and I now dual boot Ubuntu and Vista, with more and more time spent on Ubuntu)
Why is Ubuntu still bigger than XP? Wouldn't it make Ubuntu harder to run on older computers with small hard disk?

[themarker0]

Ubuntu 9.10 released last year.
Xp was released in 2001.

Been a while :P

[_h_]

Wouldn't it make Ubuntu harder to run on older computers with small hard disk?

That is why they made Xubuntu, which is the Ubuntu for low end/old systems.

[swoll1980]

Believe it or not, Commodore Basic 2.0 uses even less disk space than XP.

[szymon_g]

That is why they made Xubuntu, which is the Ubuntu for low end/old systems.

which in many cases is even 'heavier' (= requiring more RAM) than its gnome-based cousin

[FuturePilot]

You're comparing a modern operating system to an almost 10 year old operating system. Software grows over time.

[Shibblet]

I don't know if other people has asked it before. I did a quick google search but can't find an answer.
It seems that XP only requires 1.5GB, but Ubuntu requires 3-4GB.
I thought Ubuntu is supposed to be light.
XP is still popular until Windows 7 come out. (XP is better than Vista in many people's opinion. I only used Vista instead of XP because it comes with my Laptop, and I now dual boot Ubuntu and Vista, with more and more time spent on Ubuntu)
Why is Ubuntu still bigger than XP? Wouldn't it make Ubuntu harder to run on older computers with small hard disk?

Ubuntu is a great step into the world of Linux. Which comes with a full office suite (Open Office). Imagine if XP came with MS Office 2007... ;)

If you are looking for a small distro, there is DSL (Damn Small Linux), and Puppy Linux. Both are extremely lightweight, and use very little disk space. So little, in fact, XP would feel embarrassed to be seen around Puppy.

If you are looking for a lightweight Ubuntu, you could try Crunchbang Linux, or a Minimal Install of Ubuntu.

[_h_]

which in many cases is even 'heavier' (= requiring more RAM) than its gnome-based cousin

You must be confused with Kubuntu, Xubuntu is made to be run under low disk storage space and low RAM as it has less prebundled stuff and a lighter window manager that doesn't eat up a persons RAM like the regular Ubuntu (normal/high end systems) or Kubuntu (high end systems) would.

[szymon_g]

no, i'm afraid- no.
take a look on this article

http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html

simply speaking- xfce + mix of gnome apps is heavier than gnome 'alone'

[Paqman]

Ubuntu contains a lot of software in the default install. Open Office, torrent clients, photo managers, etc. Windows pretty much just has IE and Outlook.

[mmix]

if you want small distro, use slitaz, tinycore, dsl, etc..

[snowpine]

I don't know if other people has asked it before. I did a quick google search but can't find an answer.
It seems that XP only requires 1.5GB, but Ubuntu requires 3-4GB.
I thought Ubuntu is supposed to be light.
XP is still popular until Windows 7 come out. (XP is better than Vista in many people's opinion. I only used Vista instead of XP because it comes with my Laptop, and I now dual boot Ubuntu and Vista, with more and more time spent on Ubuntu)
Why is Ubuntu still bigger than XP? Wouldn't it make Ubuntu harder to run on older computers with small hard disk?

Two reasons:

1. Windows XP is almost 10 years old; Ubuntu 9.10 is brand new (and 10.04 coming soon!)
2. Ubuntu includes a complete office suite, media players, graphics editors, etc. The core Ubuntu system (without all these extra apps) only requires 500mb.

And for extra credit:
3. Storage is cheap (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136490) these days.

I do agree with you, however, that Ubuntu is not a good choice for extremely old computers. If you have a teeny-tiny hard drive, look into something like SliTaz (a complete Linux OS in only 30mb).

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Are you comparing apples to apples?

After you install the operating systems AND the applications to make it useful (e.g. and office suite, graphic editor, multimedia) are they really that different in their footprint?

You need to install all the applications you need, look at the footprint, and then assess if the total package works for you. Does the total package work for you?

You may find that an OS is better for you because it addresses your needs rather than the footprint it consumes.

There are many operating systems that are lite on computer resources. You should ask yourself, what are your concerns regarding resources? What functionality do you need, and so fourth.

[Shibblet]

Ubuntu runs great in 512megs of Ram.

The amount of Ram necessary to run XP is 1 gig.

(256meg by system requirements, but have you ever run XP on 256 or even 512? It's like putting a dump truck pedal to the metal and seeing how fast you can go. Sounds the same on your HD too.)

[JDorfler]

If you believe Ubuntu requires more space than XP, do an XP install with all the updates, then install Ubuntu. I guarantee that the XP install will be way bigger than the Ubuntu install. Plus, the XP install will have a lot less usability out of the box than your Ubuntu install.

[foxmulder881]

Ubuntu runs great in 512megs of Ram.

The amount of Ram necessary to run XP is 1 gig.

What a load of ********. I run XP and Linux on 512MB ram and have never had any problems with either of them. And yes, I've run XP on 256MB ram and even 128MB! 256MB believe it or not you could get away with in XP's early days, but you'd be pushing it now. And the latter, you simply couldn't get away with anymore. But 512MB, sure it's not a problem. And I'm a photographic imaging professional and graphic designer!

[Groucho Marxist]

You're comparing a modern operating system to an almost 10 year old operating system. Software grows over time.

As does "bloatware." Here's hoping Ubuntu doesn't go down that road...

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Ubuntu runs great in 512megs of Ram.

The amount of Ram necessary to run XP is 1 gig.

(256meg by system requirements, but have you ever run XP on 256 or even 512? It's like putting a dump truck pedal to the metal and seeing how fast you can go. Sounds the same on your HD too.)

You must be thinking about Vista. When Win XP was the primary OS, most computers didn't have more than 512MB of ram.

[NightwishFan]

I can run my laptop in 256mb comfortably. 128mb struggles to log into Gnome. I remember Xp on 128mb was pretty rough so Ubuntu is not that much heavier in requirement. For a while I was wondering why my Ubuntu used aroun 600-800mb of RAM. I booted it in 256mb and it worked, so I am assuming Xubuntu just fluffs up more on a newer system. Try running Xubuntu on a machine that is actually minimum to make the comparison.

I did this with Debian, and it seems that Debian is not much lighter than Ubuntu because it would not log into Gnome at 128mb either and I really thought it would. There is a command to make Linux use a particular amount of ram, just add this parameter while booting:

mem=256m

Replace 256 with what you want. My machine still has a 2 core cpu but it really shows up as 256mb in free and gnome-system-monitor. It is also sluggish, so it really works. You can disable multi-core (I believe) using:

nosmp

[aklo]

We shouldn't compare size with performance.

I don't care if ubuntu is bigger in file size than winxp...i'm dual boot winxp and ubuntu
and i see for myself ubuntu is much faster in terms of loading speed and even performance over many things.

Though many would say windows sucks, i actually like windows because everythings works there, games etc...since i changed to ubuntu i haven't play many games because most of them just don't work even in wine.

[NightwishFan]

I always tell people it is not that our system is not technically capable of playing games and etc, it is just that they do not support us. For example, Fable and Morrowind were never ported to the Gamecube. Thus most games are never designed to run on Linux. Frankly I have no time for them until they support what I use. It is not unreasonable, such as having almost no users. Many Linux users are commercial gamers.

Like was said, Xp is a very old OS. Compare it to the current Windows 7, which says it needs 2gb of RAM for 64-bit (I am willing to bet it would run on less than that I am not a prude that says Windows is slow). The level of control I have over a GNU/Linux install is a big selling point for me. If I want to save disk space it is possible. I can manually build my system from the ground up even with binary packages on Debian or Ubuntu.

[Shibblet]

What a load of ********.
Good to see you're not overreacting.


I run XP and Linux on 512MB ram and have never had any problems with either of them. And yes, I've run XP on 256MB ram and even 128MB! 256MB believe it or not you could get away with in XP's early days, but you'd be pushing it now. And the latter, you simply couldn't get away with anymore. But 512MB, sure it's not a problem. And I'm a photographic imaging professional and graphic designer!

I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs. It's the kids computer, and it comes with XP. It also only has 512megs of Ram. It is REALLY slow, and has a lot of hard-drive thrashing on bootup, login, and running programs.

My girlfriend's computer is a Compaq Presario, with XP, and 256megs of Ram. It makes the Dell look like a speed-demon. She can't switch between a web-browser and MS Word without it taking upwards of 10-15 seconds. She won't let me touch her computer, because she only uses it for school. Fair enough.

But the kids computer now has Ubuntu on it, and it makes a world of difference. Bootup is half the time, login is almost instantaneous, and running apps is a breeze. Even my 12 year old son told me that it was "way faster."

I must have wiped all of the ********* out of it.

[3rdalbum]

Ubuntu is not intended to be lightweight, it's intended to be full-featured.

And to say that "Ubuntu isn't suitable for small hard disks" - four gigabytes is a small installation footprint, when you consider that my 1999 iMac had a six gigabyte hard disk and that Linux programs don't have the library bloat of other platforms.

[sxmaxchine]

ubuntu is light considerin when it was released compared to xp. xp is smaller because it doesnt have as much pre installed, for example open office, firefox is bigger then IE and many other differences as well ubuntu has a bigger kernel and more/upgraded drivers

[witeshark17]

I have seen posts that say vista may range from 11 to 16 gigs. And win7 is supposed to use a bit less. :popcorn:

[swoll1980]

I have seen posts that say vista may range from 11 to 16 gigs. And win7 is supposed to use a bit less. :popcorn:
I think my 64bit Win7 used about 10GB when it was fresh.

[Dayofswords]

Ubuntu 9.10 released last year.
Xp was released in 2001.

Been a while :P

this is what i told my brother when he asked why does ubuntu have higher system requirements

9 years was like 1000 in tech time

[Dayofswords]

And for extra credit:
3. Storage is cheap (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136490) these days.

what... when did this happen?!
i bought a 150gb hdd that price 4 years ago

[eksasol]

Win7 32bit use 5gb and 64bit use 7gb. However, they have hibernation file and page file, each usually 3-4gb. So the system ended up nearing 10gb or more. You can search for how to disable and delete hibernation file. I customize my Win7 base on a guide from MSFN forum (http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/137765-windows-7-rtm-32-64-bit-updated/) and made it as small as 2.4gb.

For Ubuntu, an easy tool to use is Ubuntu Customization Kit (http://uck.sourceforge.net). My lite version takes up 1.8gb.

From my experience, the amount of ram used after installation:
Debian: 80-100mb
Ubuntu: 256mb
Windows 7: 350mb+ (you can install Win7 to a computer with 384mb of ram, despite the minimum requirement is 512mb, then you can use ReadyBoost if the computer has USB2.0.)

When installing either operating system from a USB drive, the Ubuntu (full version) takes 3minutes, Win7 (stripped version) takes 10 minutes. At least its less than Microsoft goal of 15minutes.

[MaxIBoy]

Hard drive footprint: Windows XP is, out-of-the-box, almost entirely useless. (Your OEM might have loaded it up with some extra stuff, but I'm talking about a fresh install from a CD.) It doesn't include a decent web browser, office suite, text editor, image editor, media player, or PDF viewer. Sure, you get IE, Works, Notepad, Paint, and WMP. But let's face it, each and every one of those programs is a joke at best (and an outdated, tired joke at worst.)

A note about RAM usage: Some system services, such as ureadahead, sreadahead, and preload, are designed to cache commonly-used files in RAM and speed up system performance. (Well, technically, the kernel stores it in RAM, and these userspace programs just tell the kernel which files to choose.) Most modern distros have at least one of these installed and activated by default. Keep in mind that this RAM gets freed instantly when it is needed. However, if your distro is any good, RAM usage should always be as close as possible to 100%. Remember, unused RAM is wasted RAM.

[eksasol]

Hard drive footprint: Windows XP is, out-of-the-box, almost entirely useless. (Your OEM might have loaded it up with some extra stuff, but I'm talking about a fresh install from a CD.) It doesn't include a decent web browser, office suite, text editor, image editor, media player, or PDF viewer. Sure, you get IE, Works, Notepad, Paint, and WMP. But let's face it, each and every one of those programs is a joke at best (and an outdated, tired joke at worst.) I'm just trying out 10.04 beta and I'm very impressed with the choice of programs selected to be included, all very relevant to home users. The only thing missing is a paint program and I really can't count OOo Draw. If Mono is already included, they can consider including Pinta.

I don't remember XP come preloaded with Works.

[MaxIBoy]

Huh, you may be right about Works. I don't remember too well.

The standard image editor included in Ubuntu has historically been the GIMP, although it was judged to be not user-friendly enough and too big. It was removed in favor of adding a video editor to the default lineup. (EDIT: Actually it was because some editing features added to F-Spot were considered to make it redundant for simple photo cropping and stuff. Thanks 3rdalbum!) No biggie, you can easily enough install it from the repos.

I believe Mono is included because (if I recall) Tomboy uses it.

[standingwave]

Ubuntu includes a sh*t load of apps including a complete office suite. Are you including MSOffice in your accounting?

[superarthur]

My uni is still using XP lol
I do agree Ubuntu is better with better apps, but it can still be smaller.
According to wikipedia, Windows 7 is bigger than Vista.
Minimum requirements:
XP:1.5GB
Vista: 15GB (a 10 fold increase @@")
7: 16GB
Ubuntu: 4GB

[3rdalbum]

The standard image editor included in Ubuntu has historically been the GIMP, although it was judged to be not user-friendly enough and too big. It was removed in favor of adding a video editor to the default lineup.

Just a little bit inaccurate; it was removed in favor of adding some basic editing features to F-Spot. Pitivi was added as a separate decision.


I believe Mono is included because (if I recall) Tomboy uses it.

Tomboy and F-Spot use it on the default install. I'd like to see F-Spot recoded into Python or something to free up a bit more space on the CD (Tomboy was forked and ported to C++ under the name 'Gnote').

[NCLI]

I always tell people it is not that our system is not technically capable of playing games and etc, it is just that they do not support us. For example, Fable and Morrowind were never ported to the Gamecube. Thus most games are never designed to run on Linux. Frankly I have no time for them until they support what I use. It is not unreasonable, such as having almost no users. Many Linux users are commercial gamers.

Like was said, Xp is a very old OS. Compare it to the current Windows 7, which says it needs 2gb of RAM for 64-bit (I am willing to bet it would run on less than that I am not a prude that says Windows is slow). The level of control I have over a GNU/Linux install is a big selling point for me. If I want to save disk space it is possible. I can manually build my system from the ground up even with binary packages on Debian or Ubuntu.

I'm running Win7 with Aero in Virtualbox with no issues, and only 768 MB RAM(Plus 128 MB GFX RAM). I could probably go even lower if I wanted to. Vista, however... Brrrrr....

[forrestcupp]

Why did my house cost about 40 or 50 times as much as my grandpa paid for his 60 years ago?

Why does my TV have to be 14 inches bigger than the one I had 10 years ago?

Why do I have to have a Garmin that speaks directions to me instead of a plain old paper map? Maps are still popular today, so why do they bother making Garmins?


Ubuntu is bigger than XP because it can be.

[hessiess]

Try installing some stuff on XP, it wont stay smaller that Linux for long. Windows duplicates a *LOT* of `shared' libraries.

[aysiu]

I've never seen a 1.5 GB XP installation. Are you using nLite or something to strip it down?

Every XP installation I've ever seen is at least 5 GB.

[madnessjack]

I've never seen a 1.5 GB XP installation. Are you using nLite or something to strip it down?

Every XP installation I've ever seen is at least 5 GB.
Doesn't it fit on 1 CD?

[aysiu]

Doesn't it fit on 1 CD?
Doesn't Ubuntu?

[xpod]

Doesn't it fit on 1 CD?

Aye it does but by time you install it takes up at least 3 times as much space. Same way Ubuntu fits on a CD but installs using 2 or 3 Gig`s, or thereabout`s.

My first ever Ubuntu install went on a 3.2G slave drive i`d installed on the old machine of the time, purely for fear of damaging the main 40G drive, with it`s freshly installed XP. A few updates/eureka moments later XP was gone for good and Ubuntu had that 40G drive all to itself.
A retail XP install does only take up about 1.5G-2G athough it`ll depend how recent the retail disk is and what Service Packs are included.
As as already been mentioned though by time you install all your systems Drivers, do your updating and then install the same kind of software you get with an Ubuntu installation, along with your AV, Anti this/Anti that, then you`ll soon be hitting double figures ...and then some.

[koenn]

It seems that XP only requires 1.5GB, but Ubuntu requires 3-4GB.

Install XP in a 1.5 - 2 GB partition and see how far you get.

[bcbc]

My 'C:\Windows' directory is 4.95GB. That's XP SP3 after 3.5 years, so not a fresh install, however it doesn't include any applications or user data.

[NightwishFan]

My Ubuntu Karmic root drive is using 2.8gb. I have 1332 packages installed.

[wilee-nilee]

XP home with all updates and cleaned is 3.5 gigs, the 1.5 gig amount is old.

Lucid unpacks at 3.2 gigs.

[Shibblet]

If you took a basic XP install. Just the packages included in XP. Then did a Ubuntu install, with the equivalent packages. Like Firefox instead of Internet Explorer...

Which one would take up more Drive space, and which one would consume more memory?

[NightwishFan]

I am sure Ubuntu on both counts, have to move on sometime. Xp enjoys being noisy on low spec machines though.

[chriswyatt]

I do worry that Ubuntu might eventually turn into a big lump of bloatware.

The new Software Center seems a little heavier than it should be, not so much in terms of size but it runs slow as hell on my laptop. For one thing when scrolling through the applications its a lot choppier than I'd expect, but then I don't know exactly what processing is happening underneath.

It's a new piece of software and will be optimised and tweaked as time goes on of course.

[Shibblet]

I do worry that Ubuntu might eventually turn into a big lump of bloatware.

I don't think that will happen. They have always provided the minimal install ISO for those who want a lean mean computing machine.

And they have packages in the repository that are minimal versions as well.


It's a new piece of software and will be optimised and tweaked as time goes on of course.

That is one thing you can count on with Linux. Coders that actually optimize their code. ;)

[eksasol]

I do worry that Ubuntu might eventually turn into a big lump of bloatware. I don't use the software center. I sometimes use Synaptic, but mostly aptitude and apt-get. I prefer the older version "gnome-app-install", I think Ubuntu will phase out support for it soon though.


I'm running Win7 with Aero in Virtualbox with no issues, and only 768 MB RAM(Plus 128 MB GFX RAM). I could probably go even lower if I wanted to. Vista, however... Brrrrr.... I really would like to know how to enable Aero theme in Virtualbox. I have searched on Google about it and still can't figure out what I have to do.

[NightwishFan]

I really would like to know how to enable Aero theme in Virtualbox. I have searched on Google about it and still can't figure out what I have to do.

You need to enable the virtualbox guest additions and install the experimental direct3d support. An important note is you have to be in safe mode when you install the additions inside Windows. While booting it in virtualbox hold f8 to get a menu and select safe mode.