PDA

View Full Version : is ubuntu bloated??



arkara
October 6th, 2007, 05:34 PM
ok i was a windows user and i stil am and w8ing for the next ubuntu release to completely switch to linux... now i have some questions.

i think that ubuntu is bloated..
and why is that?
i recently got a laptop a toshiba one and i was forced to get windows vista..
it had 1gb ram and was vista slow.
then went and bought 2 additional gbs or ram and got pretty faster...
i think that on my machine ubuntu is slower than vista and faster than xp(btw i swiched from vista to xp)
i recently saw the damn small linux which is very very fast the live cd loaded in 5 secs...
is there a way to make ubuntu faster??
a better memory utilization maybe??
i don't know i want to hear oppinions

~LoKe
October 6th, 2007, 05:38 PM
You need to install the drivers for your video card. Ubuntu is much faster than XP, and certainly faster than Vista.

p_quarles
October 6th, 2007, 05:39 PM
I really can't imagine what in Ubuntu would be slow with 3 gigs of RAM. Are you talking about boot time? Be specific.

arkara
October 6th, 2007, 05:41 PM
i dont say that it is slow...
i say that it is not faster that vista but definetely faster than xp...

southernman
October 6th, 2007, 05:57 PM
ok i was a windows user and i stil am and w8ing for the next ubuntu release to completely switch to linux... now i have some questions.

i think that ubuntu is bloated..
and why is that?
i recently got a laptop a toshiba one and i was forced to get windows vista..
it had 1gb ram and was vista slow.
then went and bought 2 additional gbs or ram and got pretty faster...
i think that on my machine ubuntu is slower than vista and faster than xp(btw i swiched from vista to xp)
i recently saw the damn small linux which is very very fast the live cd loaded in 5 secs...
is there a way to make ubuntu faster??
a better memory utilization maybe??
i don't know i want to hear oppinions

You were not forced to get vista, you had the option to say no thanks and move on.

There is no way you could convince me that vista is faster than Ubuntu... ever. I'd suggest to you that your having perception problems.

Comparing DSL to Ubuntu, is like comparing night to day. The don't call it DAMN small Linux for nothing ya know! :p It's made for low-end systems (e.g. with very little ram and hdd's that are spatially challenged.

Sure, you can make Ubuntu faster by installing a command line system, and then install the individual apps you absolutely require.

Ummm, memory utilization better in Ubuntu? It really doesn't get better than the Linux handles memory utilization. Now for windows oth, they could stand to learn a thing or two from the *nix camp on this aspect... perhaps that'll come in the next upgrade release to, let's say... Tundra.

I say "upgrade release" as they don't rewrite anything for the most part... they just apply patches to the existing buggy code and call it a new version. You know... greedy rat bastards like they are!

I say "Tundra" poking fun at the fact it'll take a boat load (about a gazillion GB of ram) for the next release to run smoothly.

Now, to your original question (the thread title)... Consider this:

Ubuntu (my current install) eats a whopping 2.8GB of space in /

XP (the last time I used it for my personal desktop) was around 8GB of my C drive. All of my programs were installed and run from a separate drive/partition.

I have no experience with Vista, to this point...

So I'd have to say no, Ubuntu is not bloated.

p_quarles
October 6th, 2007, 06:18 PM
i dont say that it is slow...
i say that it is not faster that vista but definetely faster than xp...
You said:

i think that on my machine ubuntu is slower than vista and faster than xp(btw i swiched from vista to xp)
Anyway, I've run all three operating systems you mention here, and really have to disagree with you.

Again, though, be specific. What's slow(er)? There are some aspects of the default Ubuntu installation that are slower (esp Firefox and OpenOffice), but that's entirely because of the design of those applications. If you run Firefox and OpenOffice under Windows, you'll get the same sloth.

voided3
October 6th, 2007, 06:31 PM
XP (the last time I used it for my personal desktop) was around 8GB of my C drive. All of my programs were installed and run from a separate drive/partition.


A fresh install of XP uses about 1.5 GB, more like 2.5 GB after updates. I know this because I once installed XP on a old Compaq from '96 on a 2.5 GB partition. If you are comparing the fully installed and updated setups of Ubuntu vs. XP, they use about the same, but remember Ubuntu already has a lot of apps perinstalled, including a full office suite.

As per Ubuntu's RAM usage, I usually have 135mb used on boot (I have VMware server installed so it uses a bit more than the original 110mb...). XP on boot on my setup w/ AVG, Logitech keyboard drivers, ATI drivers, and Launchy at start uses about 300-350mb, though a fresh XP install uses about 150-180mb usually. My Vista Ultimate virtual machine uses about 600-780mb on boot after you let it sit for a few minutes on the desktop, and that's on a classic skin with no sidebar and all ultimate extras and extraneous services disabled. RAM usage isn't an issue though because my main desktop has 2.5 GB of it, but of course if a computer doesn't have to think as much, it'll be faster.

So no, I don't feel Ubuntu is bloated. You can even slim it down to about 60-70mb used on boot (or less) of you do a server install and stick XFCE on top of it.

southernman
October 6th, 2007, 06:41 PM
A fresh install of XP uses about 1.5 GB, more like 2.5 GB after updates. I know this because I once installed XP on a old Compaq from '96 on a 2.5 GB partition. If you are comparing the fully installed and updated setups of Ubuntu vs. XP, they use about the same, but remember Ubuntu already has a lot of apps perinstalled, including a full office suite.

Yup, that would be the proper disk usage... my fault. It's been a while since using Windows on my personal machines and things slip my mind more often than not these days! :/

I must of been thinking about posts I've read regarding vista disk usage... *sighs*

vishzilla
October 6th, 2007, 06:42 PM
No way bloated, I dual boot both XP and Ubuntu...when i run XP my cabinet's fan makes a lot of noise, but with Ubuntu it doesnt. Ubuntu FTW :D

FuturePilot
October 6th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Most of the time if Ubuntu is slower than Windows you have a hardware compatibility issue. For me Ubuntu is way faster than any version of Windows.

pondochris
October 6th, 2007, 07:52 PM
i recently saw the damn small linux which is very very fast the live cd loaded in 5 secs...
is there a way to make ubuntu faster??
a better memory utilization maybe??
i don't know i want to hear oppinions
Are you just booting the live cd of ubuntu? Or is it installed on your HD?
I ask because
1 your pc can't read a cd nearly as fast as your HD
2 the OS on a live cd is pretty compressed
3 the live OS loads mostly into your ram and runs entirely from ram and cd
install it if you haven't and then compare.

bigredradio
March 11th, 2008, 06:51 AM
<quote>There is no way you could convince me that vista is faster than Ubuntu... ever. I'd suggest to you that your having perception problems.</quote>
Then later....
<quote>I have no experience with Vista, to this point... </quote>

I wonder how you are able to qualify that first statement. I think the question of bloat is an honest one. Knee-jerk reaction of "OMG they are talking bad about Ubuntu, get em!" Is not doing the Ubuntu or Linux community any good. Linux and Ubuntu have improved because users have questioned the quality and wanted to improve things. I agree that Ubuntu is bloated (with gnome). Maybe saying gnome is bloated is a more accurate statement. I have an old laptop I was running Xubuntu. I recently got a new one because I felt it was still too slow. I decided that since I have a duo-core 1.5 w/2GB RAM, I will run gnome instead. I found this thread because it appears I have not gained much in the way of performance. I am thinking of moving back to xfce4.