Why is Windows XP so much faster?

[Mazza558]

I was wondering why my Windows XP installation is so much faster at doing anything than my Ubuntu installation. I use Beryl, but the effects that I have enabled are barely more than the fade effects on XP. Switching tabs on Opera/Firefox takes 3+ seconds, the system becomes unresponsive temporarily when scrolling whilst a page is loading. I love Ubuntu and really want to use it, but when my productivity is cut like this, I'm starting to wonder if there's seriously something wrong with the linux kernel in comparison to the XP kernel. Start times are twice as much for Ubuntu as for XP, and I have more things installed with XP as well... XP just seems so much more efficient....

/endrant

Is there anything I can do to get my Ubuntu system on par with XP?

I've tried:

- Several Ubuntu Optimisation Guides, which haven't made the slightesty difference
- Using the K7 Kernel for AMD machines
- Reducing the startup items

I'm going to try turning off Beryl (i understand it's in Beta), but do you think this is the main cause of my problems?

:(

[adamJ5]

Have you upgraded your graphics drivers?

[Eric Layne]

Hi, I am wondering the same thing. Ubuntu seems quite slow compared to Winblows XP... even XFCE is slower than XP. Add to this the sheer amount of time spent setting things up, troubleshooting, finding bugs, reading forums for help... :-|

You mention the linux kernal, doubtful that is the problem.

[NewJack]

I agree with adamJ5, make sure your graphics drivers are up to date. I am running Dapper with an Nvidia card and at first I noticed things taking forever to refresh and flow (like screensavers for instance). After upgrading to the newer Nvidia driver, I don't have that problem anymore.

[Hendrixski]

Yeah, its the drivers....
I have a laptop with an s3 video card... which the drivers for windows sucked justas mych as the linux ones, so it was a fair competition and Linux runs MUCH faster. I had a laptop from work which had an ATI card, when I updated the drivers for that, it too was much faster than XP.

[Tomosaur]

Weird - my Ubuntu is lightning fast compared to XP (I dual boot). It boots faster, and generally is much quicker and smoother. And I'm careful too - I don't install crap, I keep everything defragged in Windows, all nice and clean etc, but Ubuntu just blows it out of the water.

You may want to try updating your kernel version, perhaps? Ubuntu does install a lot of bloat - which is why it 'just works' for so many people. Post install you really should trim out all the fat to ensure it works optimally on your machine.

As far as Linux in general vs Windows goes - I'd say Linux is much more optimised, faster, more efficient etc. A well-maintained Windows install can be lightning fast, sure, but it's much more difficult to keep in that condition, and overall, I think Windows requires far, far more effort to keep lean and mean, whereas I rarely notice any degradation in performance with Linux.

[puppy]

same here - Ubuntu installation takes a 3rd of the time with my hardware. Bootup and shutdown times are ridiculously fast also :)

[Sunflower1970]

Same here. XP takes a while to be usable when Ubuntu is much faster to be usable...as long as the correct drivers are installed. Otherwise, yeah. It does seem quite slow--painfully slow . (had that problem one of the first times I installed Ubuntu Edgy for the very first time)

[Mazza558]

I agree with adamJ5, make sure your graphics drivers are up to date. I am running Dapper with an Nvidia card and at first I noticed things taking forever to refresh and flow (like screensavers for instance). After upgrading to the newer Nvidia driver, I don't have that problem anymore.

I'm using the ones enabled in the "Restricted Drivers" section.

[Swab]

You have to remember you are comparing a brand new Ubuntu to an operating system from 2001. XP generally is faster.

[Mazza558]

You have to remember you are comparing a brand new Ubuntu to an operating system from 2001. XP generally is faster.
But surely, as time progresses, things get faster?

[Swab]

But surely, as time progresses, things get faster?

Not really, systems get more more resources and operating systems take advantage of those by adding more bloat!

[Somenoob]

It may be incorrectly configured or even the wrong or a poor video driver. Could also be a less suitable kernel version.

[hardyn]

I don't find that at all...

Im curious about the quatification of "faster"? I find ubuntu to be quite a bit more lively than XP... i mean not tons, at worst is as fast as XP.

[Mazza558]

I don't find that at all...

Im curious about the quatification of "faster"? I find ubuntu to be quite a bit more lively than XP... i mean not tons, at worst is as fast as XP.

I'm talking about the general responsiveness of things... menus appearing, switching between tabs, that kind of thing.

[Crashmaxx]

You have to remember you are comparing a brand new Ubuntu to an operating system from 2001. XP generally is faster.

I disagree, Ubuntu does a very good job of staying bloat free, and XP is the exact opposite. Maybe, fresh install of both, XP is faster. But as soon as you make sure Ubuntu has all the proper settings and drivers, and you start to install things to XP, XP quickly becomes much slower. Both systems being kept maintained properly, they should be pretty close, and I've always found Ubuntu a lot faster, and it remains so even with abuse. XP tends to get slower with time, almost no matter what you try to stop it.

Regardless, 3+ sec to switch tabs is WAY too slow. Mine is instant on XP and Ubuntu, even on an old PIII 500MHz machine. So there is something wrong with the OP's setup for sure. Drivers would be the first place I would look, but if beryl runs, then that might not be it.

Is this a fresh install of feisty or and upgrade? You already added beryl, any other stuff that might be causing problems?

[Mazza558]

I disagree, Ubuntu does a very good job of staying bloat free, and XP is the exact opposite. Maybe, fresh install of both, XP is faster. But as soon as you make sure Ubuntu has all the proper settings and drivers, and you start to install things to XP, XP quickly becomes much slower. Both systems being kept maintained properly, they should be pretty close, and I've always found Ubuntu a lot faster, and it remains so even with abuse. XP tends to get slower with time, almost no matter what you try to stop it.

Regardless, 3+ sec to switch tabs is WAY too slow. Mine is instant on XP and Ubuntu, even on an old PIII 500MHz machine. So there is something wrong with the OP's setup for sure. Drivers would be the first place I would look, but if beryl runs, then that might not be it.

Is this a fresh install of feisty or and upgrade? You already added beryl, any other stuff that might be causing problems?

Fresh install with a few apps (UT2004, Google Earth, Amarok, Picasa, Songbird to name a few)

Beryl runs fine apart from when uing lots of things at once (a bit of lag when using minimise/maximise effects)

[Crashmaxx]

Can you post your xorg.conf? There must be something wrong with the nvidia drivers you have, or the way X11 is setup. That setup should be flying, mine does with just a Geforce 6100.

[jcconnor]

I have recently installed the latest Nvdiia driver using the Nvidia installer and it improved things remarkably for me. I had previously been using the ones out of the restricted drivers which worked but I did notice some improvement. And it's even more responsive than the Nvidia drivers on the XP side of my machine (I dual boot occasionally into XP).

John

[Mazza558]

Can you post your xorg.conf? There must be something wrong with the nvidia drivers you have, or the way X11 is setup. That setup should be flying, mine does with just a Geforce 6100.


# /etc/X11/xorg.conf (xorg X Window System server configuration file)
#
# This file was generated by dexconf, the Debian X Configuration tool, using
# values from the debconf database.
#
# Edit this file with caution, and see the xorg.conf(5) manual page.
# (Type "man xorg.conf" at the shell prompt.)
#
# This file is automatically updated on xserver-xorg package upgrades *only*
# if it has not been modified since the last upgrade of the xserver-xorg
# package.
#
# If you have edited this file but would like it to be automatically updated
# again, run the following command:
# sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

Section "Files"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/misc"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/cyrillic"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/:unscaled"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/:unscaled"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/Type1"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/100dpi"
Fontpath "/usr/share/fonts/X11/75dpi"
# path to defoma fonts
Fontpath "/var/lib/defoma/x-ttcidfont-conf.d/dirs/TrueType"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load "i2c"
Load "bitmap"
Load "ddc"
Load "extmod"
Load "freetype"
Load "glx"
Load "int10"
Load "vbe"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Generic Keyboard"
Driver "kbd"
Option "CoreKeyboard"
Option "XkbRules" "xorg"
Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
Option "XkbLayout" "gb"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Configured Mouse"
Driver "mouse"
Option "CorePointer"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
Option "Protocol" "ImPS/2"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
Option "Emulate3Buttons" "true"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "stylus"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "stylus"
Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4"# Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "eraser"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "eraser"
Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4"# Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "cursor"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "cursor"
Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4"# Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "nvidia"
Busid "PCI:1:0:0"
Option "AddARGBVisuals" "True"
Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals" "True"
Option "NoLogo" "True"
Option "TripleBuffer" "True"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "hp f1904"
Option "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Generic Video Card"
Monitor "hp f1904"
Defaultdepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 1
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 4
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 15
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1024x768" "800x600" "720x400" "640x480"
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "Default Layout"
screen "Default Screen"
Inputdevice "Generic Keyboard"
Inputdevice "Configured Mouse"
Inputdevice "stylus" "SendCoreEvents"
Inputdevice "cursor" "SendCoreEvents"
Inputdevice "eraser" "SendCoreEvents"
EndSection

Section "DRI"
Mode 0666
EndSection

[blackened]

I'm only running an Athlon XP 2200+ with an old AGP 128MB GeForce 5200 FX and it's still faster and more responsive under Ubuntu/Beryl than under XP. Surely there's something amiss with your setup.

[Roberticus]

nLited* XP with BBLean, now that's fast! :)

I installed Xubuntu on one computer (PII 350MHz 128MB Ram, only 4gb HDD) and it is very fast. But it is now only suitable for surfing and chatting. With XP it could be used for playing Diablo 2 or Red Alert 2... =/ (very slow in Wine). I'm in between, should I keep Xubuntu or should I install nLited XP?

*=remove extra components from XP

[kelvin spratt]

fiesty is very fast and it does not white screen when processing at 100% for hrs on end as i do film work
and since i bought a new ati card boot to ready to use has gone from 45secs to 31/2 minsxp. unbuntu 1min. Xp
has only 33 processes on start up and is cleaned every day of all the internet **** and windows garbage
up to 30 mb on ave defraged on a daily basis or was but i'm not using it now fiesty is used most of the time
and since its new to me i have not started to teak yet and no white screens

[crimesaucer]

My Xp has always been slower at doing everything compared to xubuntu.

To boot Xp and open Firefox takes about 3 minutes compared to 1miute 30seconds on xubuntu.

If I were to open Firefox, Thunderbird, WMP11, GIMP, and My Documents, it nearly crashes my Windows Xp.

If I open Firefox, Thunderbird, Exaile, GIMP, and my /home directory in xubuntu, they open smoothly as if I was only opening one app. Basically they open fast.

My web pages load much faster on xubuntu, and they load perfectly. My updating for xubuntu is much faster then updating for Windows, and GIMP loads faster on xubuntu then in Xp, and my Xine-ui and Exaile media players load faster then WMP10/11.

And that's all compared to Xp running with no viruses and a clean registry with all the settings optimized for speed.

I think XFCE4.4 is fast as hell. The only thing that slows it down a bit would be Beryl, and even with Beryl it's still faster then Xp.

I don't use wine, because I have a dual boot and would rather just use my utorrent in Windows Xp. And if I played games, I would just use my dual boot also.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Performance differs depending on your hardware really. At least this is how it's been for me. If you run ATI, chances are that your performance in ubuntu will be rather slower (especially when running X1K cards for some odd reason).

I had slow tab switching in Opera with my other pc running a X1600pro with latest drivers at the time. Id'e say anyone suffering slow performance with ati cards is due to ati's horrible ability in linux to unload the cpu (because of the drivers). I'm soon to upgrade to an nvidia card... yay.

[Pobega]

If Ubuntu seems slow compared to WinXP, then you should try to use some alternative window managers.

I'd definitely give Fluxbox a shot, there are loads of HowTos on how to use Fluxbox in the Tutorials section of this forum.

You can also try another Linux distribution, since Ubuntu seems to be packaged with a lot of things people don't really need.

[jcconnor]

Section "Device"
Identifier "Generic Video Card"
Driver "nvidia"
Busid "PCI:1:0:0"
Option "AddARGBVisuals" "True"
Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals" "True"
Option "NoLogo" "True"
Option "TripleBuffer" "True"

What type of Nvdia card are you using?? Is it on the motherboard or an add-in? The identifier tag on mine shows the Geforce that I have installed.

Have you tried the latest Nvidia driver installing with the Nvidia installer? I ask because your xorg.conf is showing what looks like a standard setup. The comments on mine say that it was set up with the Nvidia installer. Just a thought, but that may help with the speed.

John

[esaym]

Out of the box my ubuntu installation was way faster then windows xp. Boot time and everything else. The only thing that is slower is seems to be initial loading of Firefox. Web browsing and tab changing is instant.

my hardware:
abit nf7-s version 2 nforce2 board (fsb @208mhz)
amd athlon xp @2.6ghz
1gb of ram @ 416mhz
nvidia 6800 agp 128mb
seagate sata HD

[Mazza558]

What type of Nvdia card are you using?? Is it on the motherboard or an add-in? The identifier tag on mine shows the Geforce that I have installed.

Have you tried the latest Nvidia driver installing with the Nvidia installer? I ask because your xorg.conf is showing what looks like a standard setup. The comments on mine say that it was set up with the Nvidia installer. Just a thought, but that may help with the speed.

John

My specs (incl graphics card) are in my sig. I presume that the nvidia driver that came with Feisty is the latest, is it not?

[kelvin spratt]

oops sorry mr moderator i said a bad word earlier
ive used all the windows variants and the fastest was 98se in use not start up xp was good till the bloatware in the service packs are i believe ms has slowed it down give patches over the last year to make vista look good
i'm sure when i start to know my way around linus as i did windows it will be even faster i process a lot of pictures and short films and i use the computer for other things at the same time and now xp whites out and process time have gone up 50% but fiesty runs like a dream but if people insist on trying to make linux like windows they will kill it like ms

[crimesaucer]

My specs (incl graphics card) are in my sig. I presume that the nvidia driver that came with Feisty is the latest, is it not?


Do you have any Beryl plug-ins (effects) enabled?

[use a name]

My specs (incl graphics card) are in my sig. I presume that the nvidia driver that came with Feisty is the latest, is it not?

I use envy to setup the nVidia driver for me. It does add the right section, but does not make that the default one. Check to see which driver is really used.

[crimesaucer]

I was wondering why my Windows XP installation is so much faster at doing anything than my Ubuntu installation. I use Beryl, but the effects that I have enabled are barely more than the fade effects on XP. Switching tabs on Opera/Firefox takes 3+ seconds, the system becomes unresponsive temporarily when scrolling whilst a page is loading. I love Ubuntu and really want to use it, but when my productivity is cut like this, I'm starting to wonder if there's seriously something wrong with the linux kernel in comparison to the XP kernel. Start times are twice as much for Ubuntu as for XP, and I have more things installed with XP as well... XP just seems so much more efficient....

/endrant

Is there anything I can do to get my Ubuntu system on par with XP?

I've tried:

- Several Ubuntu Optimisation Guides, which haven't made the slightesty difference
- Using the K7 Kernel for AMD machines
- Reducing the startup items

I'm going to try turning off Beryl (i understand it's in Beta), but do you think this is the main cause of my problems?

:(

I just re-read the beginning of the thread and could you list the effects. I used to use a few of the effects for windows fading in and out and that was really slow. Especially if you have them set wrong in the Beryl Settings Manager.

...like the genie lamp and the burn effects really slow things down. So does the blur. I basically only use wobbly windows, and a few productive ones to keep things fast.


EDIT- Your problems could be a mixture of hardware issues AND Beryl, and might be easily fixed with the right help. I'm not familiar with your hardware, but as far as Beryl goes, when I first installed it WRONG about 6 months ago it was very very slow. Then when I re-installed it correctly, all of the plugins that I checked slowed it down a lot too. Then after realizing what plug-ins are necessary and how to set them, my system was almost as fast as it was with a clean install of xubuntu using xfwm4. And that was way faster then Windows Xp. Read anywhere on the Internet and it will say that xfce4.4 is super fast.

[Naralas]

You think Ubuntu vs XP can be bad?

I've seen someone give up on Xubuntu and move to XP and have it move from a 3 minute startup time (for Firefox, not the system) to like... 5 seconds.

Some hardware just sucks with Linux still I am guessing.

[DoctorMO]

if there's seriously something wrong with the linux kernel in comparison to the XP kernel.

Not very possible since linux kernel runs on 100Mhz ARM processors for phones and widgets, it's hardly going to sweat in a 500Mhz machine or above.

Check top, there is a program called top which allows you to check for loads and usages, I use it all the time. (type top at the command line) to see processes by memory usage press M

OK here is a list of Ubuntu resource problems in order:

Firefox - crashes, fails to finish it's process when existing causing memory usage and needs killing from time to time, takes an age to start, is slow to use, has problems with javascript pages such as gmail when it comes to memory usage only games take up more.
Propritory Drivers - A big problem, we can't see what their doing we can't make improvements, lots of known problems, bugs and vulns never get fixed. look at how fast the free ati drivers are compared to the ati ones and you'll see what I mean.
X-Org: tends to use a lot of processing power and memory for what it does, the hope is that it will improve with time or be replaced.
DBus/Hal - Can create problems for hardware, constantly registering and re-registering hardware or just getting stuck, it's technically still in alpha but is included by default.
cron tasks - I've noticed my machine tends to busy it's self after midnight with running a full updatedb (updated the find tools db of all the files on your computer) and that is very hdd intensive.

Lots of packages need improvements to their performance in order to make ubuntu better in general but everyone is so busy trying to get all the features that we want in that we never get round to improving the code quality on some of the services and apps. the exceptions are things like apache, mysql or the kernel which always have people poking them for speed improvements.

[crimesaucer]

You're saying someone could press the power up switch, boot into Windows, and click on the Firefox quick launch icon, and have a working Firefox in "like 5 seconds"???

Is that without the bubbles for wifi and isp popping up, or the anti-virus downloading new definitions, or the Windows Security messages or Update messages, and the blotchy, blinking windows with un-clickable buttons and frozen windows? Or how about when you click Firefox and it does nothing forever so you click again after a minute or two, and then after a few more minutes of waiting, 5 Firefox's pop up, but real slow and incomplete and take forever to close.

It seems impossible. I've timed it on my Windows Xp and it took 3 minutes +. I have my registry cleaned and optimized and all unnecessary apps turned off, no viruses, and a defragged and clean hard disk.

With xubuntu I did the same test in a minute and a half. A fully working Firefox.

I've tried the same test opening up Thunderbird and other apps and it nearly broke Windows.

[kelvin spratt]

doctor Mo You talk dribblle
most of the faults you describe are of your own making fiddling around adding this and that for the majority
fiesty works superb if its that bad go and spend $1000 dollars on vista then complain on thier forums i forgot
they aint got any and the small print says comes with ( absolutely no warranty) that means do not complain
as we aint listening (sorry for giving you a hard time) i use my computer 18 hrs a day bussiness and pleasure
and if fiesty was in the slightest way if fi it would be in the bin the same as pentium proccessor ok for games no good for work i'm running 95% of the time at 100% cpu processing, firefox is always on as is open office
and uploading and downloading as well if one crashes its start again since i started with ubuntu no freezes no white screens that does not sound like poorly written software to me and i use the dreaded AtI Graphics card
all the effects work but only a fool would use them except for messing and by the way the ATI card is not a good choice for xp nvidia is better but i could not get it to work in Edgy But the dreaded ATi works well

[gashcr]

I think the question is: Why is your XP so much faster??

Something is definitively wrong..

[DoctorMO]

most of the faults you describe are of your own making fiddling around adding this and that for the majority
fiesty works superb if its that bad go and spend $1000 dollars on vista then complain on thier forums i forgot
they aint got any and the small print says comes with ( absolutely no warranty) that means do not complain
as we aint listening (sorry for giving you a hard time) i use my computer 18 hrs a day bussiness and pleasure
and if fiesty was in the slightest way if fi it would be in the bin the same as pentium proccessor ok for games no good for work i'm running 95% of the time at 100% cpu processing, firefox is always on as is open office
and uploading and downloading as well if one crashes its start again since i started with ubuntu no freezes no white screens that does not sound like poorly written software to me and i use the dreaded AtI Graphics card
all the effects work but only a fool would use them except for messing and by the way the ATI card is not a good choice for xp nvidia is better but i could not get it to work in Edgy But the dreaded ATi works well

Having a go at a Linux and Free Software developer is not a way to win favours, I suggest you get off my back because at the moment I feel like saying 'How dare you, you insolent whelk' the points I make are from experience, I dearly love Linux, GNU and even Mozilla Firefox it's w3c support is excellent and the demands placed on modern browsers are not small. but it must be said that it's pretty unstable on my machine. I don't even mess about with the installation, I'm a programmer not a hobbyist I get on with programming not messing about.

Take my points as a subjective view point not a windows user flame, since I havn't used windows since win98 I'm hardly the windows fan boy.

[jcconnor]

Sorry about that:


My specs (incl graphics card) are in my sig. I presume that the nvidia driver that came with Feisty is the latest, is it not?

didn't notice it earlier.

Not sure if they are the latest. Best way to insure that would be to download it from the Nvidia web site and run their installer.

John

[Eric Layne]

X-Org: tends to use a lot of processing power and memory for what it does, the hope is that it will improve with time or be replaced.

Is an improvement or replacement being actively pursued? I mean, will we ever see a Linux desktop environment on par with OS X?

[steven8]

Feisty runs smooth as a babiy's rear end on my machine. OpenOffice and Firefox load much faster than they did in Dapper. Start-Up and shutdown as quick as well. My machine is made up of parts that have 'Made For Microsoft Windows' stamped all over them.

[Tundro Walker]

On my old P3 800mhz, Xubuntu ran really smooth...until I installed Emerald with its shaded menus and such. Then, it crawled. I kinda wondered how such a "simple thing" like that could make it so slow, but it's just what happened. When I stopped using Emerald, it all sped up again. In WinXP, turning on/off flashy junk like menu shading, menu fade in/out, etc doesn't make much of a performance difference, but here it does. C'est la vie.

[macogw]

But surely, as time progresses, things get faster?

Nope. An OS from 2001 will run on a computer from 2001...so a Pentium 3 with 128mb of memory. A brand new OS will run best on a brand new computer...Core 2 Duo with 1gb of memory.

Ubuntu's really fast on my computer. A Windows user was asking if it's the computer or Ubuntu that's making it fast. I don't know though as I never ran Windows on here (except Vista...and that was HORRIBLY slow), but it'd be hard to be much snappier than this is, except maybe if I've got a lot of stuff running AND I'm using a lot of Beryl's effects...or if I have Apache going and am trying to debug an infinite loop in PHP :p

[FoolsGold]

Here are my comparisons:

* The time it takes to clear the pre-desktop screen (i.e. the initial XP logo, Ubuntu logo or Vista progress bar screens)

Windows Vista - fastest
Ubuntu - middle
Windows XP - slowest, though it can be quite fast with a minimal number of updates/programs


* The time it takes to completely load the desktop, that is, all startup processes are loaded:

Ubuntu - fastest by a long shot
Windows XP - middle
Windows Vista - God help us


* Overall practical boot time - time it takes from startup before you can use the computer to do any actual work (the above two times plus an error value, since you can sometimes do stuff while everything else is in the process of loading):

Ubuntu - fastest
Windows XP - middle
Windows Vista - slowest

So yeah, to me, Vista took the longest, but gave the impression that it was quicker to boot. Ubuntu is the fastest, XP is decent.

[macogw]

Here are my comparisons:

* The time it takes to clear the pre-desktop screen (i.e. the initial XP logo, Ubuntu logo or Vista progress bar screens)

Windows Vista - fastest
Ubuntu - middle
Windows XP - slowest, though it can be quite fast with a minimal number of updates/programs


* The time it takes to completely load the desktop, that is, all startup processes are loaded:

Ubuntu - fastest by a long shot
Windows XP - middle
Windows Vista - God help us


* Overall practical boot time - time it takes from startup before you can use the computer to do any actual work (the above two times plus an error value, since you can sometimes do stuff while everything else is in the process of loading):

Ubuntu - fastest
Windows XP - middle
Windows Vista - slowest

So yeah, to me, Vista took the longest, but gave the impression that it was quicker to boot. Ubuntu is the fastest, XP is decent.
MS moves a lot of stuff to after-login-page just so they can achieve that effect.

How long was the time-to-login-page on each of yours? For Ubuntu I have 22 seconds (can it get much faster?)

[FoolsGold]

MS moves a lot of stuff to after-login-page just so they can achieve that effect.
Heh, yeah, figured as much. But hey, at least Microsoft can say they increased the boot time in Vista. :)


How long was the time-to-login-page on each of yours? For Ubuntu I have 22 seconds (can it get much faster?)
Can't say just yet (away from my computer), but mine sounds kinda similar. Maybe a little bit longer.

[Tundro Walker]

Pfft...when I was using Win98SE, stripped down with 98lite, it took like 15-20 seconds to boot up on my old P3 800mhz. Granted, that's because it was using the Win95 shell, and a lot of the Win98 bloat was stripped out due to 98lite...LOL!

Ok, in migrating from WinXP to Ubuntu, I did notice Ubuntu (even Xubuntu and Fluxbox) were a bit slower to boot then WinXP.

BUT...

My WinXP booted faster, because

1) I tweaked the services down to just what I needed,
2) I 'msconfig'ed the thing to only load what I needed
3) I wasn't auto-loading a bunch of anti-virus, spyware blocker, etc. IE: I was surfing the net "commando", which is a really bad thing for the average user...then again, I'm not the average user...='D

Now, if I had something like Norton Antivirus loading, along with tons of other garbage that other programs want to auto-load (EG: soundblaster's toolkit, Matrox's PowerDesk quick launch, Roxio quick-launch...you know, crap you never use, but the programmers thought you'd like to see it anyways, because it's like them "peeing" on your machine and claiming it as their own), then my WinXP would have booted a lot slower.

Stripped down and tweaked (IE: optimized to do only what you're going to do with it), WinXP boots and runs pretty fast. But, when you keep stupid things active (IE: a lot of services that come swithced on by default even though you may never use them, which is WinXP's defauly "swiss army knife" mode), it's a bit of a toad.

But, think of it this way. In the time you're comparing your WinXP to start vs. Ubuntu, Ubuntu's loading a firewall, better virus protection, better disk fragmentation control, etc w/o you having to do anything else. Plus, it was designed to stay on longer then Windows...Linux is more for turn it on / leave it on, rather than constant on / off. So, turn it on, leave it on, and put it to hibernate/sleep. Then, you just tap the space-bar and it "boots" from hibernation in like a second.

[jiminycricket]

I've read that it has something to do with Xorg's double buffering, which XFree86 didn't use. Perhaps you can try out an old Linux and see if it's faster . Opera 9.2 is also dog slow for me compared to Windows or even Opera 9.1-- see this thread http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=173674

For some reason the Xorg process always takes 10-12% of CPU in Feisty as well, on my Pentium 3.

[kelvin spratt]

Dear Doctor Mo i seemed to hit a nerve with you and i apologize if i offended you it was not meant as a personal attack on your self
Why is Windows XP so much faster? was the heading not is the kernal more relyable and the simple answer is
no xp is slower. unless you remove most of its phone home features i use both and windows is getting pushed to one side as linux is more productive does not need constant restarts xp suffers from memory leakage and after prolonged constant use needs restarting linux runs constant

[DoctorMO]

i apologize if i offended

nerve duly unhit.


Why is Windows XP so much faster?

I don't reckon windows xp should be faster, at least not in the kernel when drivers have been installed. as for application user space I couldn't tell you I know my ubuntu computer is fast on my 1.7Ghz/512MB RAM; my points before only really hurt the performance with either corrupt run away processes such as firefox or nvidia/ati drivers or on really old machines such as a PII 200Mhz in which you can feel the drag that some of the system services have on the system.

[graabein]

Re: Why is Windows XP so much faster?

FUD!!! :lolflag:

[Rob Alderson]

Depends what you do to Windows, I tweaked everything, shut down as many services as possible, turned off all the sparklies & it ran at about the same speed as Ubuntu & that's before I get started beating this thing into the shape I want it.

[DJiNN]

Hasn't it got something to do with explorer being coded directly into the kernel? This is what makes it run really fast, but also what causes so many other problems, like bring the whole system down when Explorer goes **** up! :)

[Mazza558]

I just re-read the beginning of the thread and could you list the effects. I used to use a few of the effects for windows fading in and out and that was really slow. Especially if you have them set wrong in the Beryl Settings Manager.

...like the genie lamp and the burn effects really slow things down. So does the blur. I basically only use wobbly windows, and a few productive ones to keep things fast.


EDIT- Your problems could be a mixture of hardware issues AND Beryl, and might be easily fixed with the right help. I'm not familiar with your hardware, but as far as Beryl goes, when I first installed it WRONG about 6 months ago it was very very slow. Then when I re-installed it correctly, all of the plugins that I checked slowed it down a lot too. Then after realizing what plug-ins are necessary and how to set them, my system was almost as fast as it was with a clean install of xubuntu using xfwm4. And that was way faster then Windows Xp. Read anywhere on the Internet and it will say that xfce4.4 is super fast.

The effects I have on Beryl are:

Desktop Cube
Fade to Desktop
Rotate Cube
3D Effects (Windows are 3D on the cube)
Animations (Zoom and Fade)
Fading Windows
Window Decoration
Wobbly Windows
Input Enabled Zoom
Water Effect
Dbus
Window Previews
All image plugins

Though Ubuntu still seems slow compared to XP.

Edit: Does Beagle slow things sound considerably?

[crimesaucer]

These are the really slow ones that I know of:

Water effect
Animations (Zoom and Fade)
Fading Windows

Turn them off, at least the water effect and see the improvement.

Most of the really slow stuff is in the "Visual Effects" and "Extras" sections. Also, if you run animations(zoom fade = slow and slower), make sure your settings are the way you want them.

[Mazza558]

These are the really slow ones that I know of:

Water effect
Animations (Zoom and Fade)
Fading Windows

Turn them off, at least the water effect and see the improvement.

Most of the really slow stuff is in the "Visual Effects" and "Extras" sections. Also, if you run animations(zoom fade = slow and slower), make sure your settings are the way you want them.

That's a bit better! Since I still like the animations, which are the least system-hogging?

[crimesaucer]

I like wobbly windows because it only shows when I move a window, and I have it set so it's just a slight wobble. I don't use the snap or shiver.

I also like the Opacity, Brightness, and Saturation plug-in because it's nice to click "alt + mouse scroll down" and have the window fade to see what's behind it. And you can set windows as transparent.

I also use the 3D effects because they only work when you spin the cube.

I use Window Decorations for my Emerald.

In Extras I only use the Dbus and the Splash plug-in. (I love my custom splash)

In Window Management I use Scale, Resize Window, Put, Place Windows, Move Windows, and Application Window Switcher.

In Desktop I use Desktop Cube, Rotate Cube, and Fade to Desktop.

I have all Image Formats enabled, and I have nothing enabled in Accessibility and Development. All though Input Enabled Zoom is pretty cool if you have bad eyes or like close ups.

This is how I enjoy Beryl, some might say even these are too many plug-ins. Just play around with it and check out the Beryl forums (even though they have sort of closed them now) for tips and custom features.

One last tip, the Blur plug-in in Visual Effects really slowed my computer down a lot.


EDIT- you might also want to try the xubuntu-desktop or fluxbox or openbox to make things even faster, and you still should get some advice on your computers hardware and how people that use the same equipment as you make things fast and smooth.


2ndEDIT- and for the animations...when I used them for a few weeks, what I did was I selected what Window Types I wanted them for (like a Utility), and then turned down the Animation Duration time to 0.4000

[maagimies]

It's mostly GTK, it doesn't use X as efficiently as it should. Just hope for performance-patches.
Linux console programs are snappy though :)
edit:
And there's something funky about the Linux version of Firefox. The most noticiable performance problem is the lag when switching tabs. The site rendering speed is weird also. But I think that's related to GTK too.

[psionyk]

Depends what you do to Windows, I tweaked everything, shut down as many services as possible, turned off all the sparklies & it ran at about the same speed as Ubuntu & that's before I get started beating this thing into the shape I want it.

+1

I did the same thing to my Windows install, as by default it runs so much junk that is completely unnecessary and/or may open potential security holes (Automatic Updates comes to mind for some reason... :lolflag: ).

Even a tweaked Windows will only run "fast" for so long, before things start to build up over time (i.e. clogging of the registry, leftover uninstall files, etc), and bog down your system, and I know this from experience in managing my own system religiously. And if your intention is to theme Windows, forget about it running fast... having customized Windows to no end myself, any of the theming programs like Windowblinds and various others will slow your system to a crawl. The more you customize it, the worse it gets. The skinnability and theming options of Linux are amazing, and you don't need any extra programs to do it. (excluding some like Murrine theme engine or Beryl for example)

There are lots of good ways to make what I already think are faster and more stable linux installs snappier than any perceived Windows install. I definitely agree with previous comments about making sure you have updated and installed your video drivers properly. If you are using an IDE hard drive, DMA access is not enabled by default, but you can enable that for performance increase as well. Check it out here (http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_hdparm_to_improve_IDE_device_performance ) for some more information. You can also use a faster filesystem like Reiser which IMO is lightning compared to even a tweaked ext3, but as always, YMMV.

While Linux may take some work to resolve any performance/speed issues out-of-the-box, as the old cliche says, you can "set it and forget it" once you've got it tweaked. Try doing that in Windows. :)

Just my thoughts...

-Psi

[tehkain]

That's a bit better! Since I still like the animations, which are the least system-hogging?

Can I recommend not using any icon sets that use SVG not PNG. When you go into menus or folders it has to redraw the icons each time.

[Mazza558]

How would I go about seeing which version of the Nvidia Driver I have? I'm considering updating my drivers, if necessary.

[lucho115]

I have an old laptop, compaq persario 1692:
K6-2 450 (100mhz bus)
192 MB RAM
8mb ati rage videocard
6.4 HD toshiba (9 mb/s more or less using to test hdparm)
wired 3com 100mbts pcmcia card

and i have to say that XP is faster than any version of Xubuntu (6.06,6.10 or 7.04) and of course ubuntu is imposible with this setup. Trying to tune up xubuntu doesnot offer me actually more performance.
Rigth now i have dualboot XP and xubuntu 7.04 (i cannt shutdown the system, i think that maybe acpi is broke in this kernel, because in xubuntu beta it works OK), and actually i want to use linux instead of windows but is to slow , anybody have any tips to make fast ubuntu or debian?
thks

[Sunflower1970]

Is that the equivalent to a Pentium II (or III)? If so, how the heck did you get XP to run on it :shock: My old Pentium II could barely run Windows 98...but runs Ubuntu's Gnome desktop fairly well

(I also have the problem with the system not really shutting down on it, but since it's a desktop computer, it really doesn't bug me that much...)

[WalmartSniperLX]

compile your own kernel for what you need and only what you need. Sparingly make modules and make as many in-kernel drivers as you can for things you wont be replacing any time soon. Then see how fast win is compare to linux

[lucho115]

Is that the equivalent to a Pentium II (or III)? If so, how the heck did you get XP to run on it :shock: My old Pentium II could barely run Windows 98...but runs Ubuntu's Gnome desktop fairly well

(I also have the problem with the system not really shutting down on it, but since it's a desktop computer, it really doesn't bug me that much...)
The K6-2 is faster than a PII and slower than a PIII.
With XP run very well and fast , and with all the stuff, java, flash, office 2003, firefox,all updates( and also have a desktop PC with K6-233 128mb sb16 localbus, hd 8,4 , and run faster that the notebook with xubuntu, its pretty usable) but ubuntu or in the best case xubuntu are very very very slow, also xubuntu with just firefox (one tab) open eat all my ram and use 20 mb of swap, so when it start to use the swap the system is more slow still.
I dont know how do you do for use ubuntu festy in a PII ? maybe xubuntu but ubuntu? are you rigth?
thks , bye

[M$LOL]

If Linux isn't fast, something's wrong (perhaps something isn't configured correctly). If Windows isn't fast, either you need to upgrade ten different things or install Linux :P

[Sunflower1970]

The K6-2 is faster than a PII and slower than a PIII.
With XP run very well and fast , and with all the stuff, java, flash, office 2003, firefox,all updates( and also have a desktop PC with K6-233 128mb sb16 localbus, hd 8,4 , and run faster that the notebook with xubuntu, its pretty usable) but ubuntu or in the best case xubuntu are very very very slow, also xubuntu with just firefox (one tab) open eat all my ram and use 20 mb of swap, so when it start to use the swap the system is more slow still.
I dont know how do you do for use ubuntu festy in a PII ? maybe xubuntu but ubuntu? are you rigth?
thks , bye

Yes, I'm able to run Ubuntu on a PII. I was surprised, initially...but then thought this was normal, since it had been my first time using any flavor of Linux (Ubuntu Edgy originally). It might have to do with it being a 400 Mhz CPU , and I do have 384 MB RAM in it...I switched out the old ATI graphics card in it to an nVidia GeForce3 Ti 500 about 2-3 months ago which may help in speeding things up in it...also the desktop effects and beryl run on it with little slowdown in other programs...Been also playing around with different windows managers on that computer (E17, IceWM, etc, etc), too. Was going to try out Xubuntu this weekend on it to see if there was any improvement in speed...

[zielak]

AMD 64 3400+, 1GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce 7600GS, Ubuntu 7.04 (32bit)

Have You tried 64-bit edition of Ubuntu? Was it better or worse?

With this system Ubuntu should AT LEAST work acceptable if not better - to Your reference, my laptop boots to gdm login screen in 30 secs

[macogw]

Is that the equivalent to a Pentium II (or III)? If so, how the heck did you get XP to run on it :shock: My old Pentium II could barely run Windows 98...but runs Ubuntu's Gnome desktop fairly well

(I also have the problem with the system not really shutting down on it, but since it's a desktop computer, it really doesn't bug me that much...)

My PII came with Win98 and currently runs XP. It has 192mb ram and a 5gb hard drive.

[kelvin spratt]

now thats strange as my xp pro wieghs in at 6.5 gig with just office

[Sunflower1970]

Yeah. When I reinstalled XP on my Dell, I gave it a 20 Gig partition. 12-15 gigs are being used up by it..and I don't have that much software installed. No Office, no Dreamweaver or Photoshop...just small programs for my printer and the label maker, my firewall, FF, IE7, DVD Decrypter...

[wyth]

How would I go about seeing which version of the Nvidia Driver I have? I'm considering updating my drivers, if necessary.
lspci | grep VGA Or try going ot System - Administration - Device Manager and see what it says.

You man also want to check the man pages of your card. I posted this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=417552) a few days ago because I found some nice tweaks I could run in the xorg.conf file that got my rig moving right along. You'll find such tweaks in the man pages for your driver.

But those pages aren't necessarily complete. I'd like to see a wiki of some sort that collects the various options you can pass for your device. I think that'd make a lot of adventurous but frustrated users a bit happier.

[Mazza558]

01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GeForce 7600 GS (rev a2)

That doesn't really help though. It doesn't tell me what the driver is.

Another annoying problem I have is with Beryl. When I start up, sometimes the top and bottom bars disappear, meaning I have to restart X and hope that they reappear.

[jiminycricket]

+

There are lots of good ways to make what I already think are faster and more stable linux installs snappier than any perceived Windows install. I definitely agree with previous comments about making sure you have updated and installed your video drivers properly. If you are using an IDE hard drive, DMA access is not enabled by default, but you can enable that for performance increase as well. Check it out here (http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_hdparm_to_improve_IDE_device_performance ) for some more information.


I believe DMA was finally enabled by default since either Edgy Eft or Feisty Fawn. Weird thing though, I always remember Windows XP being slow as molasses when in PIO mode, yet Ubuntu was still quick.

[wyth]

You could always try Nvidia's page on Unix drivers (http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html).

[psionyk]

I believe DMA was finally enabled by default since either Edgy Eft or Feisty Fawn. Weird thing though, I always remember Windows XP being slow as molasses when in PIO mode, yet Ubuntu was still quick.

Very interesting, I'm gonna check that out for myself, thanks for pointing it out. I was using Linux for a bit before I even read about DMA not being enabled, and same as you, my *nix installs were already quick or at least they certainly felt that way to me.

[Tundro Walker]

Hasn't it got something to do with explorer being coded directly into the kernel? This is what makes it run really fast, but also what causes so many other problems, like bring the whole system down when Explorer goes **** up! :)

That got MS into trouble a while back. They integrated IE into the OS / desktop, making it hard to remove. This was back in Win98 days, and in WinXP. Not sure about Vista.

As it goes, they let you "Add/Remove" IE, but even after you remove it, it's still there, behind the scenes. In some cases, when a program tries to activate a web-browser to do whatever it's trying to do, IE opens up and runs instead of whatever browser you've installed (EG: FireFox) to use as your default instead. So, really, you haven't uninstalled it...you simply clicked on some placebo to make you think you unistalled it, and all it did was remove any GUI contact with it.

One of the ways 98lite sped up Win98 so much, was by detaching IE from the desktop/OS. IE helped with a few "spiffy" things, like icon toolbars and such, but it did slow things down. By removing it, Win98 sped up quite a bit. By replacing the Win98 shell with the Win95 shell, it sped up even more.

Now, some folks could argue that KDE does the same thing, since Konqueror is integrated into the KDE desktop. But, it's not integrated right into the OS or kernal. If you remove KDE (or Konqueror) you don't kill or handicap your OS.

Wow...1998...thinking about it now, it's so long ago (almost 10 years!), but up until a year ago, I was using Win98 on my computer, because I was able to keep it stable, bug-free, virus-free and fast. Too bad software very little new software (except for open source) worked on it (LOL).

[wyth]

Wasn't it both IE and Explorer? IE was the legally problematic one, but the file manager, Explorer, was also hooked in, no? I may have my facts backwards, but I thought some of the speed came from having the Explorer more integrated to the whole thing than, say, Konquror (or Dolphin) or Nautilus. But Explorer is different from Internet Explorer.

[Zellio]

You people are crazy. I put Ubuntu on my:

1800+
768 megs ram (ddr1 2100)
9600xt (running at agp 4x)

And it's now running faster than my laptop ever did in xp or Vista!

And my laptop is a:

Core 2 duo t5600
2 gigs 667 ddr2 ram
x1800 mobility

[psionyk]

Wasn't it both IE and Explorer? IE was the legally problematic one, but the file manager, Explorer, was also hooked in, no? I may have my facts backwards, but I thought some of the speed came from having the Explorer more integrated to the whole thing than, say, Konquror (or Dolphin) or Nautilus. But Explorer is different from Internet Explorer.

MS could not have made this more screwed up. Explorer itself (more specifically explorer.exe) is the shell that controls the GUI, and while it's different than IE which runs in the explorer shell, they are still linked to each other. For example, if you browse to a folder on your computer in IE, it will open it in explorer, and vice versa if you type a website in an explorer address bar, it will load it in IE. In that regard, they are in essence "the same" program. As far as any increased speed or performance from having integration, I never saw any kind of increase whatsoever. In fact, having an inherently security flawed browser like IE integrated into an OS should not instill anybody with a lot of confidence. :)

A lot of people preferred dropping explorer.exe entirely for different shell environments, such as blackbox or litestep, which were supposed to blow explorer out of the water.

[Mazza558]

Does anyone have any ideas why Beryl doesn't always show my top and bottom bars at startup (the windows are fine)

[hockey97]

Hi well fist off check for my graphics card drivers, after that change the display settings, change the refesh rate to at least 75mhz that will make it up to seep as xp. Also the booting in xp is faster than ubuntu ect becuse xp stand's for xtreme programming meaning that it has alot of logic in it that would take care of errors and also know the process on boot up. But the main this could how each OS is structured, the less codes their are the faster a boot can occur, but I don't think it's true that xp is faster than ubuntu you have to reall look at each features and structures of programs ect, like windows has updater and ubuntu has a package updater or installable ect if you really look at them the updater's microsoft has less code in it than ubuntu, ubuntu keeps the list ect on computer and in xp it dosen't only when you get a prompt that about a update then shows the update contents.

What I basicly think is that ubuntu gives you much more advance open source softwares and scripts than xp that can be why when installing the OS xp is much faster than ubuntu and also same with booting if you notice ubuntu takes longer to boot than compared to xp.

Hope this gives you some point of view on this topic...

[Dax0r]

you have to learn how to set a system.

[crimesaucer]

Did you set up Beryl Manager to start up every time you log in:

GNOME

* Go to System > Preferences > Sessions
* Go to the Startup Programs tab
* Click the Add button and type in beryl-manager
* Exit

and did you add the beryl start up script? Read the part in the Beryl installation wiki about Configuration, and make sure you added the "startberyl.sh" shell script correctly for your desktop environment.

[CREEPING DEATH]

You have to remember you are comparing a brand new Ubuntu to an operating system from 2001. XP generally is faster.
XP is not from 2001 any more than Ubuntu is from 1991. Why do I say that? I had one of the first factory XP computers, it came with an Athlon 800 or 900 and 128 mb RAM. It was smoking fast, faster than my mother's then-year-old PIII-600 with 128 mb RAM and Win98. Today, with SP2 and all the security updates, you'd have to run at least 768 mb RAM with XP to get the same speed it's become so bloated. 128 mb RAM was fine with XP RTM but you really need 512 to operate SP2 with stability and reliability.


I have an old laptop, compaq persario 1692:
K6-2 450 (100mhz bus)
192 MB RAM
8mb ati rage videocard
6.4 HD toshiba (9 mb/s more or less using to test hdparm)
wired 3com 100mbts pcmcia card

and i have to say that XP is faster than any version of Xubuntu (6.06,6.10 or 7.04) and of course ubuntu is imposible with this setup. Trying to tune up xubuntu doesnot offer me actually more performance.
Rigth now i have dualboot XP and xubuntu 7.04 (i cannt shutdown the system, i think that maybe acpi is broke in this kernel, because in xubuntu beta it works OK), and actually i want to use linux instead of windows but is to slow , anybody have any tips to make fast ubuntu or debian?
thks

If XP is faster on that machine, something is very very wrong with your install of Ubuntu. Debian might be faster if you install the kernel only and very selectively install desktop components.


You people are crazy. I put Ubuntu on my:

1800+
768 megs ram (ddr1 2100)
9600xt (running at agp 4x)

And it's now running faster than my laptop ever did in xp or Vista!

And my laptop is a:

Core 2 duo t5600
2 gigs 667 ddr2 ram
x1800 mobility
My desktop in an AthlonXP 2000+, 512 mb PC2100 RAM, residing in a cheap ECS main board. I got the CPU + board for $99 years ago from a local computer store. I'm using a GeForce 5200 graphics card that came out of a scrap computer a customer abandoned at the computer store I was working at. With 7.04 everything just works including the included effects when I enable them. It dose everything XP did in half the time it took XP, and my XP install was clean of garbage and had the default effects turned off.
I tried dual-booting my mom's PIII-600 (now with 256 mb RAM) with W2K and 6.06 SP1 (LOL) and 6.06 was a LOT faster than even a fresh install of W2K.
For fun, I nuked Win95 off a PII-233 MMX with 32 mb and installed DSL to the hard drive, the machine went from disgustingly slow (despite 3X the processor and 2X the RAM of my first machine) to actually as far as booting and opening programs.
If Linux is slow than Windows, something is wrong.

CD

[Mazza558]

Did you set up Beryl Manager to start up every time you log in:

GNOME

* Go to System > Preferences > Sessions
* Go to the Startup Programs tab
* Click the Add button and type in beryl-manager
* Exit

and did you add the beryl start up script? Read the part in the Beryl installation wiki about Configuration, and make sure you added the "startberyl.sh" shell script correctly for your desktop environment.

I didn't know about any script. Maybe that's the problem :)

[riven0]

Seriously, just try out the ReiserFS filesystem. I'm using that on my PIII 750Mhz with 384mbs of RAM and the comp *FLIES*!!! It's about as fast, if not faster, than my other desktop, which is a 2.6GHz with 512Mbs RAM.

And don't nobody tell me how ReiserFS is unstable, because this thing is as solid as a rock!

[crimesaucer]

I'm sorry Mazza558, I think I was wrong.

I just looked at the wiki for nVidia and Feisty, and it was very different then the one I used for Beryl Aiglx.

I didn't see anything about the startberyl.sh script in there, or the xsession script. It must be very different using nVidia. I'm sorry I gave advice for AiGLX, I hope I didn't confuse the issue.

http://wiki.beryl-project.org/wiki/Install_Beryl_on_Ubuntu_Feisty_with_nVidia

you can see what I was talking about in this one: http://wiki.beryl-project.org/wiki/Install_Beryl_on_Ubuntu_Feisty_with_AIGLX

[seshomaru samma]

My experience is that Gnome is slow
My main desktop has tons of memory so I don't care
but for my laptop I ran IceWM and it is very fast.

[cow_racer]

Mine is the other way around. Ubuntu is faster than Windows XP. I just bought this laptop for two days. After doing some update in Windows XP, it is slow. The only complaint I have with ubuntu is that when it starts, it takes a long time to check the network. In Edgy, it doesn't take long to check the network. Anyway, I am considering removing the window XP partition.

[synthetic_fenix]

I have the same problems as the OP, my specs are........

Pentium 4M 2.8 with 1GB of PC2700 Memory, 60Gb 7200 RPM hard drive, Intel 855 Graphics with 64Mb of memory.

Ubuntu just seems to be slow on this machine, my load times are almost always above 0.50 and that is even sitting at idle.

[DoctorMO]

synthetic_fenix if you know what the load times are you must be looking at top process list and see which processes are choming through your resources right?

[synthetic_fenix]

Sorry I guess I meant to say that my load times are on average .5 even sometimes on load and can get up to 2.0 or higher with just loading up firefox. I'm just curious as to why ubuntu run so slow on this laptop when on a machine that is a desktop that is only a 1Ghz thunderbird, with 256Mb of ram seems to perform twice as fast.......

[PrimoTurbo]

Windows XP feels faster because of the way it handles drawing the GUI. I don't know how people can claim that Linux feels faster, perhaps their hardware works better on Linux, or they have a fairly new computer, or they base it on the speed of operations instead of the visual speed, or maybe they need to learn to properly configure Windows? I have been messing around with Linux for a while now and I agree that Linux is generally faster at performing many tasks compared to Windows (extracting/installing/compressing/etc), however displaying the actual user interface is definitely the weaker element of Linux.

The common solution that people provide is to check your graphics card settings, to make sure you are using a specific driver, etc. However this is not really related to the drawing speed of the desktop environment, since almost all video cards are able to display the basic desktop with nearly the same speed (of course with out getting into 3d graphics). The default drivers for Ubuntu provide the same speed as the ATI or Nvidia driver for the regular Gnome desktop (with out Beryl or Compiz of course, since they depend on GL functions which require the video card's power, also minus video playback since it can improve with proper ATI/Nvidia drivers) On Windows XP with out the 3D driver for a high end card the drawing speed greatly suffers, there is a HUGE delay and tearing that occurs, you can see this by moving the window across the screen. However even Windows XP can detect many default integrated video cards with its driver support.

I'm not a huge expert, but this what I understand to be true:

Windows XP has some of the GUI coded into the kernel which is obviously going to speed everything up! Despite the fact that it's perhaps not the most appropriate solution since a small unrelated problem in the kernel can bring everything down.

All Linux desktop environments are separate processes or usually a collection of processes, for example nautilus, gnome-panel. GUI code is not coded into the kernel and requires more time to talk with the kernel. There is basically a larger path of data exchange between visual processes in Linux, therefore the structure of Linux desktop environments is more stable but less responsive.

For the most part tweaking the speed of Linux is not going to improve the speed of the GUI, unless you change to a slimmer GUI which requires less visual feedback like XFCE. I also noticed a slight improvement of GUI drawing when switching to Beryl, I think this because a 3D desktop uses a different path to draw the desktop.

For example if you move a window across the screen in regular Gnome, you will notice some slight redrawing of the window. Under Beryl the effect is a lot more smoother.

Another huge problem with many desktop environments is how they cache Icons, you have to see them 1 time in order for them to cache. Gnome doesn't cache icons until that time, this is why on first boot the Applications/Places/System menus are so slow and you can literally see the menus load the icons. Under Windows it appears the icons are cached faster or maybe even beforehand.

[MinoltaLuvR]

i gotta say, my linux distros have always been as fast as my xp installs on the dekstop. window drawing etc. linux really likes more than 1gig of ram. now i'm up to 2gigs and a decent agp video card, and linux is smoking fast now.

[stchman]

I'm using the ones enabled in the "Restricted Drivers" section.

Yes, you have a kernel that is compatible with nvidia restricted drivers now install the restricted nvidia drivers. I recommend Envy as it will install the latest drivers for your card.

Your system will be much faster.

[DefaultName]

It is best to get in details with Ubuntu first before installation. With proper know-how, Ubuntu can be used to its utmost speed. True! Even faster than Windows.



______________
Kaila
2007 Lexus LS Safety by Lexus U.S.A. (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/lexus-u-s-a-2009/2007-lexus-ls-safety-8590.html)

[macogw]

I'm sorry Mazza558, I think I was wrong.

I just looked at the wiki for nVidia and Feisty, and it was very different then the one I used for Beryl Aiglx.

I didn't see anything about the startberyl.sh script in there, or the xsession script. It must be very different using nVidia. I'm sorry I gave advice for AiGLX, I hope I didn't confuse the issue.

http://wiki.beryl-project.org/wiki/Install_Beryl_on_Ubuntu_Feisty_with_nVidia

you can see what I was talking about in this one: http://wiki.beryl-project.org/wiki/Install_Beryl_on_Ubuntu_Feisty_with_AIGLX

The startberyl.sh and xsession stuff is if you want GDM/KDM to give you options of "GNOME + Metacity" or "GNOME + Beryl" (s/GNOME/KDE/g when necessary). The Beryl project ones are the "old" directions though. On Feisty you can just "sudo aptitude install beryl" if it's not an ATI card, I think.

[xyz]

I must admit Windows has always been faster except for boot and shutdown even after going through all the tweakings...pre-linking,IPV6, DMA and so on.

I recently did a Feisty fresh install and didn't bother tweaking it.
Toshiba Satellite A 40 (bought August 2004


description: Computer
width: 32 bits
*-core
description: Motherboard
physical id: 0
*-memory
description: System memory
physical id: 0
size: 495MB
*-cpu
product: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.70GHz
vendor: Intel Corp.
physical id: 1
bus info: cpu@0
version: 15.2.9
size: 2700MHz
capacity: 2700MHz
width: 32 bits
capabilities: fpu fpu_exception wp vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe up cid xtpr cpufreq
configuration: id=0
*-cache
description: L1 cache
physical id: 0
size: 8KB
*-pci
description: Host bridge
product: 82852/82855 GM/GME/PM/GMV Processor to I/O Controller
vendor: Intel Corporation
physical id: 100
bus info: pci@00:00.0
version: 02
width: 32 bits
clock: 33MHz
*-system:0 UNCLAIMED
description: System peripheral
product: 82852/82855 GM/GME/PM/GMV Processor to I/O Controller
vendor: Intel Corporation
physical id: 0.1
bus info: pci@00:00.1
version: 02
width: 32 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: bus_master
configuration: latency=0

[imon9]

is XP really faster? I wonder!

Here is a bit of statistic= on my pentium 4 2.2Ghz, 512 MB laptop

START-UP
(1)my finely-tuned nlited XP SP2 boots in 37-42 sec... (from grub screen till my wifi is finally on and all my tray-programs is started)
(2)my finely-tuned xubuntu boots in 47-52 sec.. (same condition applied)
(3) On the other hand: most of my friends XP installation which is not fine-tuned (loaded with manufacturer driver and stupid antivirus like norton) the boot time can easily reach 1 minutes to 2 minutes.

SHUT-DOWN
XP box: shut down takes 30 sec minimum
xubuntu: always 22 sec

program responds: i will say it is almost identical

advantages XP:
some nice programs that runs on it that i find no replacement in linux box. Eg:
(1) good & simple video editing: Microsoft Movie Maker 2
(so far, movie editing on linux box is still immature. File type support is poor)
# i take back this point...i just found LIVES to be very good!!!!
(2) some online streaming audio and video (eg: some quicktime and realmedia can't play well in linux box)
(3) hardware compatibility (though linux is getting better at that now)
(4) i love an audio program call QMP beta 117 now. If you gus still dualboot XP, please give it a go... it is simply powerful!

advadtages of linux box:
(1) F.R.E.E --- free in term of price and freedom in choice!
(i know a lot of ppl who uses PIRATED XP, pirated photoshop, pirated NERO, WINDVD, and <you-name-it>... i personally only use legal copy because i think ppl effort sound be treated with respect! and here in the open-source world, we don't steal from ppl, we share them and rspect each other!!! how wonderful)
(2) less security issue (seriously, i have to agree 100% that linux is much less prone to spyware,adware, worms, and viruses... i consider myself a power user and a careful person when online, but i came down to reformat my XP box at least twice a year due to some unavoidable spyware,adware, virus... most ppl who use XP will know how to reformat after a while, agree? shame on microsoft for that!!)
(3) most latest stuff is found in linux first.. maybe some say because it is a testbed for programs..but hey, i love to have the new stuff first-hand
(4) nice community and faster help is at hand. great forum!! fast bug-fix!!

[medya]

I would also recommend ,installing your graphic card, as been said here (http://blog.shevin.info/2007/04/dont-panic-if-you-broke-graphic-in.html)

it may be a reall headache to install the "right" driver for your card, but it worth it and I tell you Ubuntu without right graphic card driver, is not Ubuntu ! it is Half of Ubuntu .

firefox and some programs used to take lots of CPU ... but after installing graphic car, it is faster than XP .
(before that XP was faster)

[medya]

I should also say , XP becomes really slow after not restarting my PC for 48 horus ..
but you wont see any diffrence in speed of ubuntu if u dont restart if for 10 days !

[diskotek]

i made a clean install windows xp & feisty fawn; but my xp is running so so slow... i made major tweaking on ubuntu (also in windows xp), my ubuntu runs much much faster than xp.

xgl is also running fast but i'm not using xgl..needless for me now.

[ikkefc3]

If you have nVidia, you cold try this:
right click on the beryl-manager icon, goto Advanced Beryl settings, goto Composite Overlay Window and click USE COW, this helps a lot and you could also set rendering platform to force AIGLX.
This speeded up my Sabayon and Ubuntu installs a lot.

[Mazza558]

Yes, you have a kernel that is compatible with nvidia restricted drivers now install the restricted nvidia drivers. I recommend Envy as it will install the latest drivers for your card.

Your system will be much faster.

Well, my x server is broken. Vesa, Nv and Nvidia don't work.

Reinstall tomorrow then I guess :(

I'll tell you tomorrow if it makes a difference.

[sin]

Another annoying problem I have is with Beryl. When I start up, sometimes the top and bottom bars disappear, meaning I have to restart X and hope that they reappear.

Beryl is still beta, so things like this happen sometimes. However, you don't have to reload X, just the window decorator. When something is wrong with the screen, just reload the windows manager (beryl-manager).

As for xp being fast, well ... there's something wrong. I have an AthlonXP 2600+, 1gb ram, FX5200 and my kubuntu is lightning fast, with crazy beryl effects (no burn/water though).

I suggest trying out the official Nvidia driver (www.nvidia.com) or if you can't manage to do it manually, Envyl (http://www.albertomilone.com/nvidia_scripts1.html) (nice script that installs drivers by itself). And I suggest a 64bit ubuntu.

Such lag on such a machine should only happen in vista.

[Mazza558]

Beryl is still beta, so things like this happen sometimes. However, you don't have to reload X, just the window decorator. When something is wrong with the screen, just reload the windows manager (beryl-manager).

As for xp being fast, well ... there's something wrong. I have an AthlonXP 2600+, 1gb ram, FX5200 and my kubuntu is lightning fast, with crazy beryl effects (no burn/water though).

I suggest trying out the official Nvidia driver (www.nvidia.com) or if you can't manage to do it manually, Envyl (http://www.albertomilone.com/nvidia_scripts1.html) (nice script that installs drivers by itself). And I suggest a 64bit ubuntu.

Such lag on such a machine should only happen in vista.

As I said in the previous post, Envy broke my X Server.

[regomodo]

You have to remember you are comparing a brand new Ubuntu to an operating system from 2001. XP generally is faster.

Ah, but you're forgetting the 6years of Automatic Crap Installer that's in there.

TBH, i'd say my Ubuntu is similar to XP except it doesn't freeze up every now and then.

Saying that i'm not sure if Xubuntu Feisty than XP on my Thinkpad 570e. However, i can play hi-res .avi's in Xubuntu which i had no chance in XP even with the correct drivers

[pelmenept]

I had the same problem and was like WTF. Without compiz - super fast, with compiz - super slow, tabs in firefox took 3 seconds to switch.

THE PROBLEM IS IN theme Engines, that emerald is using (I bet you are using clearlooks), just to test, switch to something really simple. and well be surprised how fast is everything.

Just test all of them and see which one works better for you.
:)
regards.

[OmniCloud]

Consensus I gathered.

Ubuntu is one of the more bloated OS's out there, but still faster than Windows XP depending on your hardware/configuration.

My advice, try other OS's.
Trim Ubuntu to use just the programs you actually want and use.
Use your system monitor to see exactly what your PC is doing.
Tweak.

You know how people say the "debian way" or the "Arch way". Well this is the "Linux" way. You have to find out what works best for you. For everyone, it might not be a Live CD installation of Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy. You always have to take into consideration, everyone's PC is different on the web.

[sTpny]

Whao.. Windows.. Faster?? Not over here. Not ever. I've got a dual boot laptop here with both vista and ubuntu installed on it, and ubuntu is way way faster at everything. Especially when it's doing lots of stuff. Both systems are clean, fresh and tight. The windows system takes damn near three minutes to do a complete shutdown and restart, while Ubuntu does it in about half a minute. Windows sleeping takes almost 30 seconds to wake, whereas Ubuntu wakes up in less than three seconds. I think this is because of the different way they handle memory, which is what i think your problem probably is. A windows machine will swap memory almost immediately, before the pc runs out of memory. Linux machines, on the other hand, only swap memory to disk when the memory gets all used up. Most machines have enough memory to run ubuntu without needing the swap, but if you look, I bet you'll find that your Ubuntu slows down as soon as it starts using the swap memory. If so, your slowdown is likely due to where your swap partition is located on the drive. try adding another drive formatted as swap. If you notice a big difference in speed right away, then I'm right, and you need to move your swap partition. If not, bummer.

[Canis familiaris]

Well Fresh Windows XP is always boots faster than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is well - bit bloated. If you want a faster Linux, I think Puppy, Arch, would do well.

[phrostbyte]

Windows XP is fast when you install it but it craps out quickly once you start using it for stuff. I've had this experience so much.

[adityakavoor]

Windows XP is fast when you install it but it craps out quickly once you start using it for stuff. I've had this experience so much.

I agree

[Canis familiaris]

windows xp is fast when you install it but it craps out quickly once you start using it for stuff. I've had this experience so much.

i agree
+1

[imgkg]

i have some same problem ubuntu running slow i even posted a thread why is ubuntu hardy not as smooth as it should be so i just tried installing latest nvidia drivers any ideas how to install new nvidia driver i am having problem please help me out at me thread here http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=909735 i tried stopping x server but as i press ctrl+alt+F1 but all i get is some colored strip screen please answer at my post

[evertsfnic]

XP it's much faster than ubuntu. and like the other guy said,
ubuntu it's kind of slow, the programs are great, but it's a slow OS,
and it need 350 mega to run, not 128 like in the ubuntu comercial.
RIght now i just used ubuntu for fun. But i like in the flavor of LINux MInt....

[LaRoza]

XP it's much faster than ubuntu. and like the other guy said,
ubuntu it's kind of slow, the programs are great, but it's a slow OS,
and it need 350 mega to run, not 128 like in the ubuntu comercial.


I've used Ubuntu on less RAM. By default, Ubuntu comes with a lot more stuff than XP, and XP is 8 years old almost. If we want to compare Ubuntu to Windows, we have to compare it to the modern versions, not the old ones.

[LarsKongo]

Windows XP is fast when you install it but it craps out quickly once you start using it for stuff. I've had this experience so much.
Well, if you're using it the wrong way. There's a special way you need to use Windows. You need to take care of the installation, or else it may become slow and unresponsive. :p

When you install Windows it's better to install it on a minimal partition that you don't install or store anything else on. Less fragmented parition = more responsive Windows.

Keep your files and folders organized. Don't clutter up your desktop or My Documents folder. I for example use several paritions for different things.

When you install and uninstall programs, clean your registry and harddrive with CCleaner.

Defragment your partitions every week.

Plus some more. :lolflag:

My 1 year old Windows installation boots up in 15 seconds and is very fast, stable, and responsive.

My minimal Ubuntu installation (mini.iso) where I've selected everything I wanted to install, boots up in 60 seconds or more. (Well, i didn't clean my home folder when I installed it. :p ) Then there's always a risk of some glitch happening, like the gtk-window-decorator not starting etc. I'm thinking about moving on to Arch or Debian, since they work better than Ubuntu in my Virtual Machines too. :D

[Frayer]

yeah, I have "My Document" set to a separate HD and that seems to work too.

What about the virtual memory setting?

I tried out Ubuntu "hardy heron"...abit disappointed it felt abit slow on my dual core CPU with 2GB ram and SATA drive. Even Xubuntu...supposedly its supposed to be faster.

[CrazyArcher]

On my desktop Ubuntu and XP run at about the same speed in terms of booting and program responsiveness. Due to some constraints, I work mainly in XP and have it running without reboot for days if not weeks, and it still works well. When I installed Ubuntu, I was somewhat dissapointed, because I expected it to run faster than XP, assuming that it was better written, but it wasn't the case.

[billgoldberg]

I realize this is an old thread, but I'm still going to say it.

XP is an ancient OS. Ubuntu is a modern OS.

If you want a lightweight Linux distro, then Ubuntu is not for you.

[billgoldberg]

yeah, I have "My Document" set to a separate HD and that seems to work too.

What about the virtual memory setting?

I tried out Ubuntu "hardy heron"...abit disappointed it felt abit slow on my dual core CPU with 2GB ram and SATA drive. Even Xubuntu...supposedly its supposed to be faster.

The difference between Ubuntu and Xubuntu isn't that big.

XFCE is a bit faster, but not that much.

Try fluxbox and see if you feel the difference.

[imgkg]

oh i have just installed correct driver in ubuntu its working as much fast infact even better than xp thank you guys