View Full Version : [all variants] In what way is Ubuntu v12.04 LTS better than v10.04 LTS?
scruffyeagle
September 9th, 2012, 07:20 AM
I'm still using v10.04 LTS. I've been reading the posts re. v12.04 LTS, and (so far) I haven't found any reason to upgrade. Please note when responding, that I've tried Unity and will NEVER willingly use it. I consider it to be the least useful UIDE I've ever seen. Therefore, answering that Unity is an advantage won't sway me in the least. What I want to know about, are comparisons of the underlying OS's. So, the questions I'd like answered are:
1) What advantage is there, in upgrading to v12.04 LTS?
2) What does v12.04 LTS do better than v10.04 LTS?
3) v10.04 LTS is still nowhere near its expiration of support - so what qualities make v12.04 deservant of assigning a new "LTS" designation?
TIA!
uRock
September 9th, 2012, 07:47 AM
You are good to go until April. Unity is the biggest graphical change you will see. It make searching for installed applications and files very easy and it looks great. Aside from that, 5 years of not thinking about upgrading, while recieving security updates, is the best part for me.
malspa
September 9th, 2012, 08:05 AM
I like both Unity and GNOME Shell better than the old GNOME, so for me, being able to use either (or both) of those is a step forward from 10.04 (although I also added Openbox to 12.04 -- I had it in 10.04, too).
Anyway, while I like to stick with LTS versions, two years is long enough.
Maybe you'll find some useful info in this article: http://all-things-linux.blogspot.com/2012/05/ubuntu-shootout-1004-lts-vs-1204-lts.html
If not, the obvious thing to do is to download 12.04 and check out a live session, or maybe even run it virtual, and see what you think yourself.
If you're happy with 10.04, maybe there's no reason to move on right now.
mikeyxote
September 9th, 2012, 08:11 AM
MALSPA,
Thanks for mentioning GNOME. GNOME is my main reason for sticking with 11.4. I don't have the animosity for UNITY that a lot of folks have, but I would prefer to stick with what's comfortable...
scruffyeagle
September 9th, 2012, 08:37 AM
I like both Unity and GNOME Shell better than the old GNOME, so for me, being able to use either (or both) of those is a step forward from 10.04 (although I also added Openbox to 12.04 -- I had it in 10.04, too).
Anyway, while I like to stick with LTS versions, two years is long enough.
Maybe you'll find some useful info in this article: http://all-things-linux.blogspot.com/2012/05/ubuntu-shootout-1004-lts-vs-1204-lts.html
If not, the obvious thing to do is to download 12.04 and check out a live session, or maybe even run it virtual, and see what you think yourself.
If you're happy with 10.04, maybe there's no reason to move on right now.
Thanks for the response. I just read the page you linked to, and although it was kind of you to supply the link, it wasn't really sufficient. The author of that page seems well versed in various distros, but is a self-proclaimed "noobie" to Ubunto, having avoided it since v5. A lot of the page did what I was seeking to avoid, focusing on & discussing aspects & comparisons of the desktop environments. The only useful info. re. the OS's I found was that v12.04 was more bulky & slower than v10.04. What wasn't examined, was whether that bulkiness & lack of speed was related to the installation of Unity. So, I'm still left wondering "In what way is v12.04 LTS a better OS?"
vasa1
September 9th, 2012, 08:42 AM
... So, I'm still left wondering "In what way is v12.04 LTS a better OS?"
Obviously, the replies so far aren't convincing. If you don't like it, that's that.
kurt18947
September 9th, 2012, 08:44 AM
One real benefit for me has been better support for wifi devices. Is is not mandatory to use Unity when using 12.04. I do happen to like gnome-shell but Xfce, LXDE, MATE and Cinnamon all work.
mastablasta
September 9th, 2012, 08:55 AM
So, I'm still left wondering "In what way is v12.04 LTS a better OS?"
better support for latest hardware, better interface (for some), newer programmes, some bugs from previous kernels fixed (power management but only for some), new features.... i would say you should read release notes if oyu want to see what things have changed.
if 10.04 works well on your mashcine and you have everything you need there is no need to update at least not until april 2013.
as for desktop user interface you can use (instead of default Unity): XFCE (looks preety much like gnome2), Gnome fallback mode, Cinnamon and Mate (continuing development of old Gnome2).
IWantFroyo
September 9th, 2012, 09:05 AM
Just updates of applications, and more DEs if you want them.
scruffyeagle
September 9th, 2012, 09:10 AM
Okay! Now, we're gettng down to the kind of info I was hoping to find. We've had listed
1) Better functioning of wifi device,
2) Better support for newer hardware, and
3) Bug fixes vs. previous kernels w/ mention of power management.
Anything else?
TygerTung
September 9th, 2012, 11:56 AM
Yeah I just installed 12.04 onto my netbook, but it seems pretty much impossible to use.
Doesn't seem to have any menus and everything is very difficult to find. Couldn't even find the software centre, and there doesn't seem to be any way to add any applets.
I think you might be able to do some of the things you can do on 10.04 but it is going to be quite difficult.
I couldn't find any way of moving the minimise/maximise/close buttons from the left side of the window to the right which is the normal place for them.
Also if you minimise a window is just disappears, it would seem.
randrews
September 9th, 2012, 02:14 PM
If you've got a Sandy Bridge GPU, you could get a dramatic power usage improvement.
randrews
September 9th, 2012, 02:23 PM
I missed the Page 2 post where you said you've now installed it, so my last post probably looks pretty pointless.
As for the user interface shock you're experiencing, I moved from 10.04 to 12.04 a week ago, and it took me a little time to find my way around. Within a couple of days I found myself thinking "well, maybe I can get used to this", and a week later I'm pretty much completely satisfied with the new interface, give or take a few fiddly bits.
My understanding, though, is that if the new UI just doesn't do it for you, it's supposed to be trivially easy to switch it off and use a different one.
malspa
September 9th, 2012, 02:28 PM
i would say you should read release notes
+1
Also, you can find tons of reviews of both releases at DistroWatch: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu
Or, take 12.04 for a test drive, as I hinted earlier.
Doing any of the above might give you more of the info you're looking for than you're likely to get here, unless you'd prefer to just kick back and wait for more people to reply in this thread.
vexorian
September 9th, 2012, 02:46 PM
I'm still using v10.04 LTS. I've been reading the posts re. v12.04 LTS, and (so far) I haven't found any reason to upgrade. Please note when responding, that I've tried Unity and will NEVER willingly use it. I consider it to be the least useful UIDE I've ever seen. Therefore, answering that Unity is an advantage won't sway me in the least. What I want to know about, are comparisons of the underlying OS's. So, the questions I'd like answered are:
1) What advantage is there, in upgrading to v12.04 LTS?
2) What does v12.04 LTS do better than v10.04 LTS?
3) v10.04 LTS is still nowhere near its expiration of support - so what qualities make v12.04 deservant of assigning a new "LTS" designation?
TIA!
Unity is better than gnome 2 for the normal user. And after some tweaking, you can combine gnome classic and unity to get one of the best DEs ever . I am saying this to answer the initial question "Why is 12.04 LTS better than 10.04 LTS?" which is different than "convince me to switch to 12.04". Hence why it is necessary to mention unity, it is an improvement over 10.04 regardless of whether it can convince you or not.
Without compiz (And I mean unity-2D or gnome fallback, ubuntu 12.04 is much more responsible and quicker than 10.04 and 10.10. There are also a lot more DE choices, and all are updated. Unity is not the thing for you, big deal, you can still use gnome-fallback (which is basically the same as what 10.04 has), or Gnome shell, or cinamon or KDE, or LXDE. In regards to the version upgrade, what changes about the interface is not the interface used but the version used. And 12.04 comes with more recent versions of these interfaces.
LibreOffice and newest firefox are much better than old open office and firefox 4. In fact, yes, updated versions of all packages is the one reason I switched from 10.04 in the first place. 10.04's packages are so outdated. I had to choose between upgrading ubuntu's version or having to use ppas for everything.
My scanner works in 12.04 and doesn't in 10.10. nvidia driver is also much better with my card (and I don't have the hassle of installing manually).
Those who are more comfortable with gnome 2 interface can just use gnome-fallback. I mean, really. Unless your PC is 32 bits and does not support PAE (which would mean you are in the stone age) there is really no reason at all to keep 10.04.
scruffyeagle
September 11th, 2012, 08:42 AM
Thank you for this reply, Vexorian. It was very informative. However, the one line I didn't fully understand was
Without compiz (And I mean unity-2D or gnome fallback, ubuntu 12.04 is much more responsible and quicker than 10.04 and 10.10.
I still haven't found a clear explanation of exactly what "compiz" is, so I'm not sure if you're saying that unity-2d & gnome fallback use compiz, or that with unity-2d &/or gnome fallback compiz isn't used - and therefore, whether the speed increase you mention is due to the presence or absence of compiz. I'm also not sure what you mean by "responsible". Could you elaborate on that? TIA!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.