Building a PC -- how well will Ubuntu run on it?

[ccf183]

Hi everyone, I'm new to Ubuntu but since I'm building my first desktop PC (cheap-build) and I don't want to put Windows on it as that license is expensive.

How well will Ubuntu 12.04 run on the following specs?

BIOSTAR A780L3G Motherboard (AMD 780L Chipset, 1333MHz DDR3, SATA 3.0 Gb/s, RAID, 6-CH Audio, Gigabit LAN, Radeon HD 3000 Graphics)

AMD HDZ965FBK4DGM Phenom II X4 965 Processor (Quad Core, 6MB L3 Cache, 2MB L2 Cache, 3.40GHz)

Thermaltake CL-P0503 CPU Cooler (70mm Fan, Rifle Bearing)

Sony Optiarc AD7280S-OB 24x DVDRW Drive (24x, SATA)

ADATA Premier Series AD3U1333C4G9-SH Desktop Memory Module (4GB, PC3-10666, DDR3-1333MHz, 240-pin DIMM)

Western Digital WD5000AAKX Caviar Blue Hard Drive (500GB, SATA 6Gbps, 7200RPM, 16MB)

My uses are the following:

Web browsing (Chrome: 5-10 tabs open, flash video)
Office applications (LibreOffice, Evernote)
Media (Music, movies, photos)

Multitasking (10 tabs open on Chrome, LibreOffice running, with Pandora playing)

Also, because I'm new to computer building, do you see any problems with the hardware I am choosing to buy?

Thank you so much!

[darkod]

I would say it will run very good on that hardware.

The hardware looks fine, the only change I would consider is buying a memory kit instead of one module. That way you can make use of the double channel, accessing both modules at the same time.

See how much more expensive is 2x4GB kit, and if it costs too much for your budget, consider 2x2GB. I would go with the 2x4GB, they are reasonably cheap these days. With a total of 8GB it will fly even on multitasking. I think that's when more memory really pays off.

[ccf183]

I see. I've had some experience with Ubuntu in the past. Flash video seems to require a LOT more power on Ubuntu than on Windows.

Does this desktop-build have enough for fluid flash on Ubuntu?

[darkod]

I have Athlon 4850e and 6GB memory and haven't noticed any major problems with flash.

[ccf183]

What are the differences between Ubuntu and Xubuntu. I've heard Xubuntu is faster but what would I give up for more speed?

[IWantFroyo]

Xubuntu uses the XFCE desktop environment.
www.xubuntu.org

Ubuntu uses Unity (which uses Gnome3).
www.ubuntu.com

It's really just different looks, different ways to do things, and different applications. XFCE happens to use less memory than Unity.

[ajgreeny]

Xubuntu uses the XFCE desktop environment.
www.xubuntu.org (http://www.xubuntu.org)

Ubuntu uses Unity (which uses Gnome3).
www.ubuntu.com (http://www.ubuntu.com)

It's really just different looks, different ways to do things, and different applications. XFCE happens to use less memory than Unity.
Don't even consider the different applications being a problem as every application for every one of the *ubuntu family of OSs is available and can be installed in any other of the OSs, for example, many gnome ubuntu users insist on having k3b as their disk burner software, even though it is from the kde kubuntu desktop.

[IWantFroyo]

The different applications sometimes use different libraries. I find that on old hardware sticking with as few dependencies running as possible is better. Your computer is good enough that you shouldn't have to worry about that.

Ubuntu - GTK3
Gnome-shell - GTK3
XFCE - GTK2 (I think)
KDE - Qt

[700]

Processor makes a huge difference. I had to update my bios on my new computer with 2 core processor, because factory bios wasn't ready for 8 cores, so I experienced a comparison between both. While 2 core processor was 100% easy busy, 8 core is usually not busy (because everything has done) or 40% busy on first 2 cores (multiple tabs on multiple browsers + other software running).