PDA

View Full Version : Why is ubuntu faster than windows??



RobikShrestha
April 25th, 2011, 01:59 PM
I have been using ubuntu for a year now. I have noticed it is much faster than windows, never crashes and never hangs. Why is it so? Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

Random_Dude
April 25th, 2011, 02:08 PM
I only have the obvious reply: it requires less resources to run.
Some Linux users actually find Ubuntu slow, there are other Linux distros which are even faster.

Cheers :cool:

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 02:12 PM
I have been using ubuntu for a year now. I have noticed it is much faster than windows, never crashes and never hangs. Why is it so? Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

Probably your hardware.

Windows 7 is superfast, and in some ways much faster than Ubuntu.

The one thing I do admire about Ubuntu that I hate about Windows.... the hard drive is never spinning doing background tasks!!! I am always so annoyed with Windows doing updates and indexing, defragging while I am working. Thank you Ubuntu for taking away this annoyance.

matt_symes
April 25th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Hi


I have been using ubuntu for a year now. I have noticed it is much faster than windows, never crashes and never hangs. Why is it so? Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

There is not as much bloat in the code even though Ubuntu is a bigger distribution. That is one reason why.

Microsoft supports a lot of legacy code.

Kind regards

Fedz
April 25th, 2011, 02:27 PM
Windows is a bloated beast whilst Ubuntu is lean animal ;)

You can download freeware apps from Snapfiles.com to turn this 'bloat' off & Windows is quite decent - runs ok but, it has a habit of building back up without you knowing. Ubuntu isn't that underhanded & deceiving :D

RobikShrestha
April 25th, 2011, 02:44 PM
I see the term "bloat" a lot. What does it mean?

matt_symes
April 25th, 2011, 02:49 PM
Hi


I see the term "bloat" a lot. What does it mean?

It has a lot of extra code to support legacy software. It aims to be backward compatible with older versions of windows. Linux not so much.

Kind regards

FormatSeize
April 25th, 2011, 02:51 PM
It's not bloated full of crap that you don't need. The reason why Windows needs to be packed with so much stuff is because their business model is "a PC on every desktop". As such, they have to add many, many t hings that people won't use to accomodate things that people just may want to use for whatever reason.

With Ubuntu, you get a working system, and while there are things that you may not use, there's nothing extraneous for those "just in case some wierdo wants to do Some Wierd Obscure Thing". That is, unless you choose to put that on your system.

I'm no expert, though. I could be wrong about this. Of course, there are those who live by Windows no matter what, and they will say that they have machines that are faster than Linux based ones. I personally don't believe this, but it's not like we run out computers side by side and see how many processes each can handle.

My best friend and my girlfriend both have Macbooks, but of course they are the type of people who just want a computer to work in an office environment or "look up Magic cards" environment. They wouldn't dream of doing the things with their computer that I do with mine. My girlfriend actually doesn't let me near her computer since that one day I was using the terminal and she thought I was "breaking something."

AlanR8
April 25th, 2011, 02:55 PM
Already touched upon earlier in the thread, background tasks, indexing etc.

I've used Ubuntu for over four years now and have NEVER bothered with anti virus programs.

This means that 100% of the processor is used for what I want it for, not what the OS needs to protect itself......

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 02:59 PM
It's not bloated full of crap that you don't need. The reason why Windows needs to be packed with so much stuff is because their business model is "a PC on every desktop". As such, they have to add many, many t hings that people won't use to accomodate things that people just may want to use for whatever reason.

With Ubuntu, you get a working system, and while there are things that you may not use, there's nothing extraneous for those "just in case some wierdo wants to do Some Wierd Obscure Thing". That is, unless you choose to put that on your system.

I'm no expert, though. I could be wrong about this. Of course, there are those who live by Windows no matter what, and they will say that they have machines that are faster than Linux based ones. I personally don't believe this, but it's not like we run out computers side by side and see how many processes each can handle.

My best friend and my girlfriend both have Macbooks, but of course they are the type of people who just want a computer to work in an office environment or "look up Magic cards" environment. They wouldn't dream of doing the things with their computer that I do with mine. My girlfriend actually doesn't let me near her computer since that one day I was using the terminal and she thought I was "breaking something."

Windows is not bloated by any means. A fresh install of Windows is the same as Ubuntu. In fact, Windows comes with LESS software than Ubuntu.

When you buy a PC from the store it comes with extra software that the hardware manufacture is being paid to advertise.

There are many other ways to bad-mouth an OS, but this just simply is not correct.

I feel like people refuse to use Windows for the wrong reasons. Most of it is ignorance because they have not had the funds to use it. Ubuntu is free, that is why it attracts a particular group of people, and these people feel pride when they use it because its the 'under-dog'. My reason for choosing Linux is knowledge. I want to know everything. Windows became so easy and friendly that I found boredom. I am so sick of hearing people complain about it. Its a good Operating System. If it was focused on using software people wanted right out of the box it would do much better.Microsoft just depends on contracts from Norton, McAffee, Roxio etc... to survive.

How many of you would choose an Xbox over the PS3??? I have both and Xbox is by far better. PS3 is linux based and Xbox is Windows.

If you choose to use Windows use smart software. Its easy to get lost using the wrong things in such a big world.

For anti-Virus, use Avast

If you have an Ipod, Use Itunes. But be reminded, Itunes itself is a slow application. That is what happens when software is ported from a Unix environment to a Windows.


I firmly believe linux belongs in the server world and that is where it should stay. The desktop is a fun hobby but doesn't YET have the software that is needed on a day to day basis for the MAJORITY of the world. I truly do admire those that use linux and push forward towards a better tomorrow. Lets just call a spade a spade.

matt_symes
April 25th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Hi


Windows is not bloated by any means.

After writing software on Windows for the last 15 years i would beg to differ.

No offense intended.

Kind regards

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 03:17 PM
Hi



After writing software on Windows for the last 15 years i would beg to differ.

No offense intended.

Kind regards

Well may I ask what part of windows you consider bloated? What makes writing on linux easier besides different protocol in the codes

Frogs Hair
April 25th, 2011, 03:46 PM
Back to OP , I dual boot and don't notice a huge difference in speed . Ubuntu is faster and one thing I notice is size . I have more programs on ubuntu than Win 7 and it is 50 gb larger than ubuntu . I have no music , movies , mail client , and very few pictures stored on Windows . My lagest program on Windows is Open Office at 350 mb. I have no idea why Win 7 uses 50gb and Ubuntu uses 4 . I don't think that much space is being used by anti virus software .

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 03:59 PM
Default install size of Windows 7 is around 5gb or less. A good Anti-Virus should not load more than 100mb. Althought AVG, Norton etc... can use up to 300mb.

If your pictures are high quality they are probably around 3mb each...if they came from a digital camera.

Do you have a bunch of .iso's in your downloads folder on windows? mnaybe from trying out ubuntus??? lol

JKyleOKC
April 25th, 2011, 04:08 PM
Hi



After writing software on Windows for the last 15 years i would beg to differ.

No offense intended.

Kind regardsIn my case it's more than 20 years, and I agree totally. One instance of its bloat is the number of update programs that are stored in the system directory forever. Another is the content of its INF folder, which has installation instructions for almost every piece of hardware ever made.

I still do run a number of virtual machines that have Windows installed, since I must support my consulting clients and database repair and almost all of them run Windows, but every machine on my LAN boots to Linux and the VMs stay in "saved" state except when they are actually needed.

Some 20 years ago I participated in writing "Undocumented DOS" which involved disassembling and reverse-engineering MS-DOS. I found lots of dormant code right down at the assembly-language level. A few years later I had to do the same thing, to a lesser degree, with Windows (at version 3.1) to solve critical bugs with a package I was developing, and found even more. The DMCA now makes reverse-engineering a crime in the USA, so I can't try that with Vista or Win7, but unless they totally abandoned their mantra of code re-use and started over from scratch I'd bet more than half of that unused code is still there at the bottom of the pile!

sirkeith
April 25th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Back when I was still running a dual boot system I did some simple comparison testing with system monitors. Using the same software (system specific) on both platforms with the same target ie: Opera and Acrobat my machine performed better on Ubuntu. Both cpu and memory handling showed a smaller footprint on Ubuntu. And whats more the Ubuntu side felt better.

For me free is great but the feeling that I have a little more control is priceless. Microsoft says "you have to" Canonical says try this if you like.

Frogs Hair
April 25th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Default install size of Windows 7 is around 5gb or less. A good Anti-Virus should not load more than 100mb. Althought AVG, Norton etc... can use up to 300mb.

If your pictures are high quality they are probably around 3mb each...if they came from a digital camera.

Do you have a bunch of .iso's in your downloads folder on windows? mnaybe from trying out ubuntus??? lol

No , Windows is well cared for as far as removing temp. files , junk files , and defrag . Even if there were Ubuntu ISO files it would only add up to 2.1 gb. and no games are installed currently . Win 7 requires 16 to 20 gb for installation if you have not checked recently .

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

Jerry N
April 25th, 2011, 08:20 PM
I have been using ubuntu for a year now. I have noticed it is much faster than windows, never crashes and never hangs. Why is it so? Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

I haven't found any version of Ubuntu to be noticeably faster than Windows XP or Win 7. And I don't consider boot time to be a performance benchmark. Actually, I find Ubuntu to be a bit sluggish in starting some applications and OpenOffice is just downright slow.

Jerry

|{urse
April 25th, 2011, 08:26 PM
Recently I got the chance to look at some of the latest ntkernel source. It's hilarious, there are notes about where the devs are going to meet up after work, gossip about interns discussions on what car they think is the coolest etc.

Just goes to show, you can't pay people to be passionate about good code. Linux (in general) runs faster because the dev(s) really cared about removing cruft.

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 08:41 PM
No , Windows is well cared for as far as removing temp. files , junk files , and defrag . Even if there were Ubuntu ISO files it would only add up to 2.1 gb. and no games are installed currently . Win 7 requires 16 to 20 gb for installation if you have not checked recently .

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

I just installed Windows 7 x64 SP1 Into a virtualbox.... it was around 5 gb lol.

It is probably saying minimum 20 gb for you to actually be able to use it. Same with Ubuntu I am sure.

collisionystm
April 25th, 2011, 08:43 PM
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements


Ubuntu Desktop Edition



1 GHz x86 processor
1GB of system memory (RAM)
15GB of hard-drive space (although this can be split onto 2 drives, a 5Gb / and a 10Gb /home fairly easily)
Graphics card and monitor capable of 1024 by 768
Either a CD/DVD Drive or a USB port (or both)
Internet access (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Synaptic/PackageDownloadScript) is helpful




http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements




Windows 7 system requirements


If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:


1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/64-bit-support) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

lol....notice anything????

I think I hear bells..... Frogs Hair (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1024576) just got schooled!!!!

frank604
April 25th, 2011, 08:48 PM
As stated about, resources. Off a fresh boot, I load up about 400 megs into ram with ubuntu 11.04 with all the glitz and glamour. Same system on windows 7, I'd get close to 1g or more off a fresh boot.

Another thing is over time, windows needs to defrag the hard drive due to the way it writes files on the harddrive. Simple statement=linux does not need to defrag the hard drive, freeing up unnecessary maintenance time and providing sleek hard driver performance read/write.

bodhi.zazen
April 25th, 2011, 08:53 PM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.

emoguitarist06
April 25th, 2011, 09:02 PM
I feel like people refuse to use Windows for the wrong reasons. Most of it is ignorance because they have not had the funds to use it. Ubuntu is free, that is why it attracts a particular group of people... .

I disagree. The "free" as in price is awesome however I believe that's what gets most people to "try" Ubuntu but not keep it.


Windows became so easy and friendly that I found boredom...
How many of you would choose an Xbox over the PS3??? I have both and Xbox is by far better. PS3 is linux based and Xbox is Windows...

Well I was running vista in 2007 when I just got tired of it! I've never had a "blue screen of death" or a Virus on my Windows machine but I was just tired of how FAR BEHIND windows was and at the time I loved Mac (now I don't agree with their proprietary hardware) however I knew Mac/Unix was far ahead. So I youtubed linux and found Ubuntu and was blown away. I'll never go back. Even if I had to pay $200 for ubuntu I would. OH and PS3 Is WAY BETTER... IMHO



I firmly believe linux belongs in the server world and that is where it should stay. The desktop is a fun hobby but doesn't YET have the software that is needed on a day to day basis for the MAJORITY of the world. I truly do admire those that use linux and push forward towards a better tomorrow. Lets just call a spade a spade.

My friend who runs an IT shop in Canada had an elder couple (like in their 60s) bought their first PC (it was like an HP or something) but they brought it into his shop so he could "fix it" It's was "bloated" by HP. So first he just removed all of the crapware and left just Windows. A week later they brought it back saying that it was too hard to use and they kept getting defragmenting reminds (and all that crap that NTFS has to worry about). So with their permission he installed a fresh install of Ubuntu & added the Ubuntu restricted extras and sent them on their way... they phoned him the next week Thanking Him. Their computer was much more User Friendly and faster and they haven't had any error messages.

idk... Windows sucks ;)

NightwishFan
April 25th, 2011, 09:17 PM
I find Ubuntu to be a very "optimized" system. Everything gets such high performance. Kernel compiles and video encoding is fast as can be. However it also seems to not be very "reactive". Programs take longer to start but they run much better when they are up. Latency is good but the system 'feels sluggish'. It is by no means slow but appears so at times.

Debian 6 takes probably a full 10 seconds longer to boot and another 10 to log in (on my laptop). However programs start in less than half of the time if not faster. With the default dirty_ratio and swappiness disk IO backs up at times though (especially when extracting tar.bz2 archives). This is easily fixed by adding commands to /etc/rc.local.

Windows 7 I have barely tried. On my cousins laptop it is very sluggish (2gb of RAM). Though I have tried it in a virtual machine and it ran very well (1gb). I think a vanilla install is better than what the vendors ship.

I would have to say to get anything done I would rather use Ubuntu but I find myself a bit embarrassed comparing Ubuntu to Windows 7 for "apparent responsiveness".

From my experience a lot of this apparent slowness is due to the newer linux kernels or perhaps even the newer GCC. Debian Squeeze in testing in the early days past Lenny seemed much faster than the final Debian 6, probably because of changes around 2.6.32.

I say "faster" as I said before the numbers say otherwise. Linux is as fast as ever and much faster in some areas (especially with ext4). However it feels "laggy". Apps start slow, random periods of disk writeback cause Firefox to freeze. (Probably just a firefox problem as other applications do not freeze up). Really though the responsiveness is what matters to the common end user, and not 10% faster compiles.

I am not displeased with performance though and I know the desktop is being focused on by the Linux kernel developers. Windows can continue to seem faster while I get more work done. I will not call Windows slow either (only the vendor installs). ;)

GabrielYYZ
April 25th, 2011, 09:37 PM
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements


http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements
lol....notice anything????

I think I hear bells..... Frogs Hair (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1024576) just got schooled!!!!



https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements
[code]


Ubuntu Desktop (GUI) Installation



1 GHz x86 processor
512MB of system memory (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/LowMemorySystems) (RAM)
5GB of disk space (for OS files; consideration should be given to the (often very large) size of user files that will occupy the /home directory)
Graphics card and monitor capable of 1024x768
Cd/Dvd-drive (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation#Installation%20without%20a%20CD)
Sound support, if you need sound.
Internet access (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Synaptic/PackageDownloadScript) is helpful



you obviously ignored what it says about 10gb for /home on the one you posted. ideally, /home should have a lot more than that. i'm running sabayon ATM and (after installing a lot of stuff and updating more than twice, i'm using less than 8 gb of disk space for the system.

also:


Don't be fooled by the required hard drive space value. The requirements state that you need 15GB of free space, but this is only for the expansion of files during installation. It still requires a hard drive or partition of 40GB.

Frogs Hair
April 25th, 2011, 09:48 PM
I just installed Windows 7 x64 SP1 Into a virtualbox.... it was around 5 gb lol.

It is probably saying minimum 20 gb for you to actually be able to use it. Same with Ubuntu I am sure.

To run properly it needs the minimum requirements that is why they suggest it . Did you look at the system requirements in the link. ? Also , I am not using virtual box. It is not the same for Ubuntu , I have 35 gb set aside for Ubuntu and it uses 4 and I have 200 gb set aside for Win 7 and it uses 50 . after being installed a little over a year . I built my computer and there is no free software included with my copy of Windows.

|{urse
April 25th, 2011, 09:49 PM
I like win7 for some things, linux for others (read my sig)
But the op asked why ubuntu is faster not is ubuntu faster. Kinda speaks for itself there.

wojox
April 25th, 2011, 09:53 PM
The Ubuntu kernels are compiled with Unicorn tears and then it gets Chuck Norris approved. :P

akoskm
April 25th, 2011, 09:55 PM
...
Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

This one really made my day.
Thank you.

Frogs Hair
April 25th, 2011, 09:55 PM
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements



http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

lol....notice anything????

I think I hear bells..... Frogs Hair (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1024576) just got schooled!!!!

That is what I wrote I 16 to 20 gb and provided a link to the Win 7 system requirements .

RobikShrestha
April 26th, 2011, 06:59 AM
I don't see any difference is speeds of open office or ms office. (to whom it concerns)

Jagoly
April 26th, 2011, 07:37 AM
People keep comparing vanilla installs of these OS's. The truth is that the only people who use vanilla installations are, well, no-one. What can Windows do out of the box? Ubuntu can do a bit more, but still not a lot. Use Mint DVD edition if you want everything.

With Ubuntu it's easier to get the best easily. Search the Software center and you'll find some excellent stuff you've never heard of. Do a web search to find stuff for Windows and you'll get either an expensive lucky dip, A virus, or some awesome FOSS stuff ported from linux.

Windows takes up a lot more space because anything installed on it needs to do everything itself. It needs to include all of it's own libraries and it needs a phone home feature to update itself. For Ubuntu a particular library is only needed once.

If you want your machine to be faster, don't buy Windows and get a new NVidia Gfx card instead.

rjbl
April 26th, 2011, 08:30 AM
I say "faster" as I said before the numbers say otherwise. Linux is as fast as ever and much faster in some areas (especially with ext4). However it feels "laggy". Apps start slow, random periods of disk writeback cause Firefox to freeze. (Probably just a firefox problem as other applications do not freeze up). Really though the responsiveness is what matters to the common end user, and not 10% faster compiles. (Previous Poster)

One of the differences I've often noted over the years between GNU/Linux / X and MS Windows(all versions) is that in GNU/Linux (all versions including Ubuntu) when the desktop has painted to screen the startup process is complete, the system is ready to use; this has never been true for any version Windows that I have ever used. The Desktop comes up, apparently ready to use minutes before the system has completely started. Hasty application calls during Windows start up often fail, always have down; hence my advice to all my Windows Users. Switch on, login in and WAIT five minutes for the system to 'settle down' before you start hittin' the keys. Never necessary with Ubuntu, or indeed any GNU/Linux / X that I've ever used.

Just my groat's worth
rjbl

PS Try running MS FSX in a dedicated Windows box (XP or Windows 7) - The flight options screen comes up and if you don't wait for at least 5 minutes before kickin' the tyres and lighting the fires the application goes t*ts up.

rjbl

alexan
April 26th, 2011, 08:51 AM
Windows is more "for companies to user" (aka: your PC is propriety of those who sold you). This mean that evererything you buy/install in your PC had to have patcher/updater/systemchecker/extramenus and a lot of more stuff that suck away resource of your system.


Ubuntu is more "for user... everyone else is welcome to try their best". Ubuntu organize the software (no extra menu for uninstall, readme, website link etc). If a software/driver begun to pollute your system is immediately recognizable.
The system update take care of all your software, so any extra [i]resource-sucking[i] utility get easily detectable (and many prefer to remove)

linuxyogi
April 26th, 2011, 09:35 AM
I can think of two reasons

1) Because Linux filesystems don't get fragmented (almost).

2) Linux is superior in handling of temporary files in comparison to Windows.

SnappyU
April 26th, 2011, 11:20 AM
Windows is not bloated by any means. A fresh install of Windows is the same as Ubuntu. In fact, Windows comes with LESS software than Ubuntu.

When you buy a PC from the store it comes with extra software that the hardware manufacture is being paid to advertise.
...

You gotta be kidding me right?


Windows 7 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
Windows XP - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) Really?
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) Right!
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
Ubuntu 10.10 - https://help.ubuntu.com/10.10/installation-guide/i386/index.html
No desktop 64 megabytes 256 megabytes 1 gigabyte
With Desktop 64 megabytes 512 megabytes 5 gigabytes


Ubuntu 10.10 released last October comes as a full desktop OS with useful office apps, graphics apps etc working OOTB. All at 5+gb. Windows 7 was launched to public in October 22, 2009, a year before Ubuntu Maverick (10.10) and it weighs in at 16gb without any apps, and excludes the space of apps that OEMs will install.

Add in the mandatory virus scanner, malware scanner, firewall, office ... not bloated?

SnappyU
April 26th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Hi
After writing software on Windows for the last 15 years i would beg to differ.

No offense intended.

Kind regards

After writing software on Windows for the last 16 years, and programming for past 25 years, I unequivocally agree. :D

:popcorn:

SnappyU
April 26th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Default install size of Windows 7 is around 5gb or less. A good Anti-Virus should not load more than 100mb. Althought AVG, Norton etc... can use up to 300mb.

If your pictures are high quality they are probably around 3mb each...if they came from a digital camera.

Do you have a bunch of .iso's in your downloads folder on windows? mnaybe from trying out ubuntus??? lol

Except that the 5gb is bare Win7 (Starter?) while Ubuntu 5gb is with full desktop apps, ready to go.

SnappyU
April 26th, 2011, 11:42 AM
I haven't found any version of Ubuntu to be noticeably faster than Windows XP or Win 7. And I don't consider boot time to be a performance benchmark. Actually, I find Ubuntu to be a bit sluggish in starting some applications and OpenOffice is just downright slow.

Jerry

While Ubuntu is speedy and most apps in it run fast, Open Office and now Libre Office (fork of OO) is super slow. I wish someone would port it to python or C++. I believe it uses java ... hmmm :(

_outlawed_
April 26th, 2011, 10:01 PM
Also the internet speed is faster with ubuntu.

I don't notice any difference. The one thing I do notice is Ubuntu likes to completely kill my network when direct HTTP file downloading, whereas my Windows 7 does not.

RiceMonster
April 26th, 2011, 10:17 PM
I see the term "bloat" a lot. What does it mean?

On here, it means any of the following:
- It uses more than 1 MB of RAM
- It uses more than 1 MB of disk space
- It's designed to run on a CPU higher than a PII
- It's written by Microsoft
- The person in question doesn't like said software

NightwishFan
April 26th, 2011, 10:46 PM
On here, it means any of the following:
- It uses more than 1 MB of RAM
- It uses more than 1 MB of disk space
- It's designed to run on a CPU higher than a PII
- It's written by Microsoft
- The person in question doesn't like said software

=D>

Truer words have never been spoken.

_outlawed_
April 26th, 2011, 10:48 PM
- It's written by Microsofte

What's with the anti-Microsoft statement here? Ubuntu comes with a lot of stuff I don't need, so to call out Microsoft on that is quite...I don't know the word for it.

NightwishFan
April 26th, 2011, 11:08 PM
It was just (really good) sarcastic humour. :)

K_45
April 26th, 2011, 11:15 PM
The problem with Windows is its resource requirements. Why do you need 2GB of RAM minimum to browse the internet properly or just run Windows properly? Why do you need 10GB installed just for 7 with no external applications? Why do you need a dedicated card to run Aero properly, (or at least Sandy Bridge)? Then your typical user installs a ridiculous amount of crap that slows everything down. For Linux, a Pentium II with 128MB+ of RAM and any (supported) GPU is enough to run a basic WM from a Debian netinstall, (minus Firefox).

_outlawed_
April 26th, 2011, 11:25 PM
The problem with Windows is its resource requirements. Why do you need 2GB of RAM minimum to browse the internet properly or just run Windows properly? Why do you need 10GB installed just for 7 with no external applications? Why do you need a dedicated card to run Aero properly, (or at least Sandy Bridge)? Then your typical user installs a ridiculous amount of crap that slows everything down. For Linux, a Pentium II with 128MB+ of RAM and any (supported) GPU is enough to run a basic WM from a Debian netinstall, (minus Firefox).

It's not as bad as you make it out to be.

Idle state using Windows 7 theme (black), Aero (integrated chipset mind you) enabled as well as DWM. Windows services is customized and stripped down of what I don't need/use, and only the following applications are running (mostly background processes):

Comodo Internet Security / SuperAntiSpyware
CCC.exe / MOM.exe (ATI)
Diskeeper
Microsoft Intellipoint

http://i53.tinypic.com/243p060.png

Same stuff, but with Windows classic pretty much disabling DWM:

http://i56.tinypic.com/25f6nvq.png

cgroza
April 26th, 2011, 11:26 PM
While Ubuntu is speedy and most apps in it run fast, Open Office and now Libre Office (fork of OO) is super slow. I wish someone would port it to python or C++. I believe it uses java ... hmmm :(

I did a sloccount on it once. Java represents jest a small fraction of the code. The most of it is written in C++.

jwbrase
April 26th, 2011, 11:27 PM
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements



http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

lol....notice anything????

Well, I notice that the system requirements you quote there are the *recommended* requirements for Ubuntu, whereas, from having done some actual testing of the memory usage of both Ubuntu Lucid and Win7 directly after boot and login, I find that the requirements you quote for Win7 are pretty near the bare minimums. A 64-bit Lucid system uses around 300 or 400 megs directly after boot and login, whereas a 32-bit Win7 system (less memory hungry according to the requirements you quoted than a 64-bit Win7 system) uses around 900 megs.

Now, Windows has come along way, and alot of the grief it gets about technical issues is outdated (the grief Microsoft gets over its business practices, is, IMHO, well deserved), but *empirically* it is more bloated than Ubuntu. Now, bloat *is* always relative to your hardware: On a system with 8+ gigs of RAM, Windows taking up a gig or two isn't too bad. On a laptop with 3 gigs RAM, it's bloated. On my 10-year-old eMachine with 256 megs of RAM, even Lucid is bloated.

cgroza
April 26th, 2011, 11:30 PM
It's not as bad as you make it out to be.

Idle state using Windows 7 theme (black), Aero (integrated chipset mind you) enabled as well as DWM. Windows services is customized and stripped down of what I don't need/use, and only the following applications are running (mostly background processes):

Comodo Internet Security / SuperAntiSpyware
CCC.exe / MOM.exe (ATI)
Diskeeper
Microsoft Intellipoint

http://i53.tinypic.com/243p060.png

Same stuff, but with Windows classic pretty much disabling DWM:

http://i56.tinypic.com/25f6nvq.png

Those numbers are crazy. I was talking with a friend about Ubuntu memory foot print, and when I told him that it can do everything Windows does with only 512 MB of required RAM, he didn't believe me. He said it is impossible because windows takes 3 times more memory and the difference is too big.

K_45
April 26th, 2011, 11:32 PM
It's not as bad as you make it out to be.

Idle state using Windows 7 theme (black), Aero (integrated chipset mind you) enabled as well as DWM. Windows services is customized and stripped down of what I don't need/use, and only the following applications are running (mostly background processes):

Comodo Internet Security / SuperAntiSpyware
CCC.exe / MOM.exe (ATI)
Diskeeper
Microsoft Intellipoint


900MB on boot? I have 170MB on boot with XFCE, 450MB or so with Firefox and a few tabs. And what is your WEI for Aero? My IGP got 3 or so. Win 7 is a fat OS, simple as that.

RiceMonster
April 26th, 2011, 11:38 PM
What's with the anti-Microsoft statement here? Ubuntu comes with a lot of stuff I don't need, so to call out Microsoft on that is quite...I don't know the word for it.

I wasn't calling out Microsoft.

_outlawed_
April 26th, 2011, 11:41 PM
Those numbers are crazy. I was talking with a friend about Ubuntu memory foot print, and when I told him that it can do everything Windows does with only 512 MB of required RAM, he didn't believe me. He said it is impossible because windows takes 3 times more memory and the difference is too big.

Not entirely crazy. I downgraded from Ultimate x64 to Home Premium x64, and it saved me a TON of RAM to use for more applications since I multitask quite a bit.


900MB on boot? I have 170MB on boot with XFCE, 450MB or so with Firefox and a few tabs. And what is your WEI for Aero? My IGP got 3 or so. Win 7 is a fat OS, simple as that.

Not at boot, after 1.5 hours of uptime and closing everything I can down to an idle state.

And it may be fat to you, but it certainly isn't to me. Unused RAM is wasted RAM.

I've run Ubuntu on my desktop before (10.10 x64) and Windows 7 beats it in speed and responsiveness, on the other hand Ubuntu beats Windows 7 on my laptop which is less powerful than my desktop.

trollger
April 26th, 2011, 11:50 PM
In manny ways ubuntu is the windows of the linux world. it is mostly aimed toward new comers and every thing works out of the box much like windows does.

Yes it is true that open source poeple do exagerate a bit (in excitement og=f course) anout things like how fast Ubuntu is. To be honest if I had to make a spped comarision with any linux distro and windows I think ubuntu would not be my first pick... or second... or third...

anyway the truth is Ubuntu does generaly boot faster than windows and does not get slowed down over time as fast as wondows does because there is no disk fragging (unless your drive is verry full) and there is no regestry. As far as running performance Ubuntu does take fewer recources than windows but it is not really all that significant.

disabledaccount
April 27th, 2011, 12:03 AM
Windows is not bloated by any means. A fresh install of Windows is the same as Ubuntu.Buahhahahaa!!!!
XP was usable with 512MB RAM - but not for serious gaming. Vista and newer needs 1GB to just start, 2GB is absolute minimum to work, unless You are masochist. When desktop shows, booting process is at 50% (maybe 70% in case of W7). Fresh install of windows is good point to start tunning it to get functional operating system instead of bloated bloatware with tens of useless services running in backgroud (like Mr Wipe My Unused Icons :) ... what a crap...). MS should drop their installers and buy licence from nLite - they know windows better... :)

After 3 years of usage and upgrading from 8.10->9.04->9.10, having many programs installed, my laptop's root directory takes ~4.5GB, nearly zero fragmentation, booting to fully functional system in about 20sec. And this is old Toshiba with P3@1.2GHz, 512MB RAM, 60GB 5400rpm HDD, used by my 4 and 6 years old children to watch movies and play simple flash games... :) 140-150MB after booting, 180MB after several hours of usage.

My desktop boots in 15secs, tons of software installed and main OS (which is 10.04 64bit at the moment) takes 6.5GB on root partition (which includes /opt, /var etc, but /home is on separate array). 380MB after booting, but Im using many scripts working in background and some additional kernel modules. Right now, 3h uptime, Firefox with some tabs (eg online radio station), Nautilus and conky ->480MB

About programs and loading speed: f.e. "preload" package can make miracles, especially for bigger applications. :)

K_45
April 27th, 2011, 12:17 AM
Buahhahahaa!!!!
XP was usable with 512MB RAM - but not for serious gaming. Vista and newer needs 1GB to just start, 2GB is absolute minimum to work, unless You are masochist. When desktop shows, booting process is at 50% (maybe 70% in case of W7). Fresh install of windows is good point to start tunning it to get functional operating system instead of bloated bloatware with tens of useless services running in backgroud (like Mr Wipe My Unused Icons :) ... what a crap...). MS should drop their installers and buy licence from nLite - they know windows better... :)

After 3 years of usage and upgrading from 8.10->9.04->9.10, having many programs installed, my laptop's root directory takes ~4.5GB, nearly zero fragmentation, booting to fully functional system in about 20sec. And this is old Toshiba with P3@1.2GHz, 512MB RAM, 60GB 5400rpm HDD, used by my 4 and 6 years old children to watch movies and play simple flash games... :) 140-150MB after booting, 180MB after several hours of usage.

My desktop boots in 15secs, tons of software installed and main OS (which is 10.04 64bit at the moment) takes 6.5GB on root partition (which includes /opt, /var etc, but /home is on separate array). 380MB after booting, but Im using many scripts working in background and some additional kernel modules. Right now, 3h uptime, Firefox with some tabs (eg online radio station), Nautilus and conky ->480MB

About programs and loading speed: f.e. "preload" package can make miracles, especially for bigger applications. :)

I'd agree, on my Debian net install its around 20 sec to boot, and everything is snappy with XFCE.

_outlawed_
April 27th, 2011, 01:23 AM
And BTW, here is a fresh install of 11.04 Beta2 on my desktop with Gnome. With Unity, it was about just even with my idle Windows 7 shots from earlier.

K_45
April 27th, 2011, 01:54 AM
And BTW, here is a fresh install of 11.04 Beta2 on my desktop with Gnome. With Unity, it was about just even with my idle Windows 7 shots from earlier.

Ubuntu is trying to make a distro that is acceptable and usable by all, so its naturally bloated up with extra bits and pieces.

Timmer1240
April 27th, 2011, 02:13 AM
I got an nlited version of Xp on a disk when I get time I wanna duel boot with that and use that just for gaming purposes it only takes 45 megs of ram idling seriously stripped down but would make a good gaming OS

_outlawed_
April 27th, 2011, 02:16 AM
I got an nlited version of Xp on a disk when I get time I wanna duel boot with that and use that just for gaming purposes it only takes 45 megs of ram idling seriously stripped down but would make a good gaming OS

Legal copy of XP I hope?

Thewhistlingwind
April 27th, 2011, 03:09 AM
I don't know about faster, but my friend claims that after I installed debian on his ancient laptop, the battery life went from thirty mins at max to three hours. I call bull but he insists on it.

K_45
April 27th, 2011, 03:24 AM
I don't know about faster, but my friend claims that after I installed debian on his ancient laptop, the battery life went from thirty mins at max to three hours. I call bull but he insists on it.

Was this a Debian netinst? What packages did you install?

Thewhistlingwind
April 27th, 2011, 06:40 AM
Was this a Debian netinst? What packages did you install?

Binary disks one and two. (It has no ethernet card.....) And just the standard stuff. Laptop, base system, etc. I told him that the battery indicator was messing with him. (He claims it goes WAY longer then a half an hour regardless.)

disabledaccount
April 27th, 2011, 11:56 AM
And BTW, here is a fresh install of 11.04 Beta2 on my desktop with Gnome. With Unity, it was about just even with my idle Windows 7 shots from earlier.Oh, really?
Watch this:
(10.04 vs 11.04 i386, clean installs + all updates :) )

edit: argh, scaled down, but it' still readable I hope..

halovivek
April 27th, 2011, 12:28 PM
I am using Ubuntu from 8 version ..Now its 10.10...
I find its more speed than Windows 7...
I am using both OS in same system..
Ubuntu is faster...
Till now I could not able to find correct answer... Due to speed...now I moved from windows to Ubuntu..

collisionystm
April 27th, 2011, 01:21 PM
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/Finland_period/xenix_microsoft_shortlived_love_affair_with_unix.s html



The second important fact that is often overlooked by naive or crooked Linux zealots is that Microsoft was essentially a software company that controls and extends the PC hardware standard. Without huge Microsoft investments in PC hardware standard there can be no any substantial base for Linux at all because price of hardware is discounted due to the volume of Microsoft software sells.
In this sense Linux is a side effect of Microsoft dominance, a bastard child of DOS and Windows and no number of Linus Torvalds interviews can change the fact that he just replicated Microsoft's abandoned effort with Xenix. Paradoxically with less innovation and quality: Linux kernel was first and foremost about "premature optimization", not so much about new architectural features which can expand the Unix capabilities envelope.

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 01:42 PM
I've never used Windows 7 or Vista, only windows XP and Mac OSX (Although my brother has Vista) but my parents old computer running XP got bloated with time so I switched it for a fresh install of 10.10 with full compiz effects. It only has 512mb of ram and an old graphics card (using the free drivers) but runs fine, faster than XP did anyway.

By that test alone I say it must be less demanding although it probably depends on the specific hardware in question.

Jagoly
April 27th, 2011, 01:47 PM
That is one of the most biased document's I have ever read. I think that thread has become nothing more than another linux vs windows argument.

edit: @collisionystm. i posted too late

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Ok well...

I really like OSX because of its speed, reliability and simplicity but don't like its restrictive hardware/software.

Now its a free for all :)

Sometimes It does go through my head, Ubuntu isn't free because Im paying for it through my time getting it working :D

el_koraco
April 27th, 2011, 02:07 PM
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/Finland_period/xenix_microsoft_shortlived_love_affair_with_unix.s html

heesh, this is like the Windows diehard's response to freetards.

collisionystm
April 27th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Sometimes It does go through my head, Ubuntu isn't free because Im paying for it through my time getting it working :D

Amen to that.

yanom
April 27th, 2011, 02:11 PM
Hi



It has a lot of extra code to support legacy software. It aims to be backward compatible with older versions of windows. Linux not so much.

Kind regards

Ubuntu is still compatible with old Linux programs, even from like 15 years ago.... i think that's because the Linux kernel hasn't changed as drastically over time as the Windows kernel.

yanom
April 27th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Ok well...


Sometimes It does go through my head, Ubuntu isn't free because Im paying for it through my time getting it working :D

Tinkering and getting it working is the fun part :)

Jagoly
April 27th, 2011, 02:25 PM
Tinkering and getting it working is the fun part :)

exactly. besides, the only time it's essential is when you have crappy (READ: ATI Graphics) hardware. In which you can use the money you saved to buy new hardware (something green, with an eye on it).

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 02:28 PM
Tinkering and getting it working is the fun part :)

Maybe when you know what you are doing but not always to a beginner, it can be scary lol

Plus not when you actually have some work to get done and you need it working.

I hope one day I'm good enough see it that way though :D

Jagoly
April 27th, 2011, 02:34 PM
Everything should be fine for "work" out of the box. The only things you likely to run into trouble with is accelerated graphics and maybe wireless. Besides, that's what the forums are for;)

RiceMonster
April 27th, 2011, 02:36 PM
Ubuntu is still compatible with old Linux programs, even from like 15 years ago.... i think that's because the Linux kernel hasn't changed as drastically over time as the Windows kernel.

Actually, shared libraries on Linux rarely retain backwards compatibility. Libraries such as glibc often make it impossible to run older or newer Linux programs. It's also not accurate to say the Linux kernel does not change. It does not have a stable driver ABI. This is well documented by the kernel devs.

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 02:40 PM
But how can you get work done without wobbly windows??

Yes you are probably correct but if you are a beginner and go messing about, break something and don't know how to restore it and THEN have work to do you've gone and shot yourself in the foot :D

How does Windows 7 compare speed and stability wise to XP and Ubuntu in general anwyay?

_outlawed_
April 27th, 2011, 02:45 PM
How does Windows 7 compare speed and stability wise to XP and Ubuntu in general anwyay?

Windows 7 runs faster and better on my desktop than Ubuntu does, but Ubuntu runs faster and better on my laptop than Windows 7 does.

I've never been able to get Windows 7 to lock up, crash or BSOD me ever. On the Ubuntu side of things, I've experience hangs (the screen greys out) and the sorts.

I use both and I like both Windows 7 and Ubuntu, but I'm on the side of the line with Windows 7. It's a fantastic product, and it just works. :)

I still use Ubuntu though. :P

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Oh really?

I was considering it for when I get a new computer sometime but not if it isn't a big turn around from Windows XP.

I get those problems with Ubuntu too. Also little glitches, lots of little graphical glitches. Sometimes I'm not sure if its the software or Ubuntu though.

_outlawed_
April 27th, 2011, 02:57 PM
Oh really?

I was considering it for when I get a new computer sometime but not if it isn't a big turn around from Windows XP.

I get those problems with Ubuntu too. Also little glitches, lots of little graphical glitches. Sometimes I'm not sure if its the software or Ubuntu though.

I've been using Win7 since retail release, and I've literally beaten the crap out of it. I've run it for weeks straight 100% CPU/RAM usage, and around 50% pagefile and it would still respond quickly to anything I was doing.

I tried doing the same thing with Ubuntu, and I was getting grey outs galore and delays as my HDD catches up.

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Plus you can run games and demanding software under Windows 7. For a Ubuntu setup I can't imagine there being much point going past a certain amount of hardware power as there isn't anything to really push it? Infact the hardware would probably last longer than the support for it under the latest Ubuntu release :D

disabledaccount
April 27th, 2011, 10:57 PM
For a Ubuntu setup I can't imagine there being much point going past a certain amount of hardware power as there isn't anything to really push it?Compilers, media converters, cad applications (most using openGL, not DX), scientific simulators (like one of my base tools: ngspice), openCL - eg. accelerated high quality rendering, BOINC (eg Rosetta), not to mention Ubuntu-based servers, which are becoming more and more popular... ...just nothing really...

and about games: fair test is to compare apples to apples, not Wine which is emulating directX. But while Wine can run many games smoothly trough emulation then which system is faster?

aguafina
April 27th, 2011, 11:16 PM
Plus you can run games and demanding software under Windows 7. For a Ubuntu setup I can't imagine there being much point going past a certain amount of hardware power as there isn't anything to really push it? Infact the hardware would probably last longer than the support for it under the latest Ubuntu release :D


I think Maya and all them other Linux film production apps would push it.

el_koraco
April 27th, 2011, 11:24 PM
I've been using Win7 since retail release, and I've literally beaten the crap out of it. I've run it for weeks straight 100% CPU/RAM usage, and around 50% pagefile and it would still respond quickly to anything I was doing.

I tried doing the same thing with Ubuntu, and I was getting grey outs galore and delays as my HDD catches up.

How do you run an OS with 100% CPU and 50 percent swap/pagefile for weeks on end?

Ken UK
April 27th, 2011, 11:29 PM
Yes you are correct, I was thinking about myself personally I guess. I only really use office software, GIMP, Inkscape, java development tools (JDK, Netbeans etc.) then other basic things like web browser and skype. Also keep in mind I'm talking strictly about Desktop, Servers are a whole different beast...

Not sure what cad applications you are talking about, I've not seen any serious cad software native to Linux yet but I'd be happy to know if there is any, I do use Windows based cad software regular.

Completely forgot about things like Maya/Blender.

Primefalcon
April 27th, 2011, 11:44 PM
Some Linux users actually find Ubuntu slow, there are other Linux distros which are even faster.

Cough Puppy Cough

K_45
April 27th, 2011, 11:57 PM
Cough Puppy Cough

*Cough Debian netinst Cough*