Is Ubuntu getting bloated and slow?

[sulekha]

Hi,

read the full story here:-

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2854&tag=rbxccnbzd1

[alienprdkt]

I really can't say haven't been using it long enough to tell from older versions. I have only been a Ubuntu user for bout 6 months. It seems to run good to me, or else I wouldn't use it. It doesn't outperform Gentoo IMHO, but it sure is alot easier to use:D.

That's why for all my desktop needs I use Ubuntu.

[eternalnewbee]

I feel it's getting faster.
The position of YES and NO in your poll should be switched.

[Amazona aestiva]

I feel Ubuntu fast, reliable, stable, desktop effects are nice, I can do everything that I want... what's the question?

[-grubby]

Hardy's just as fast as Feisty was for me.

[grotto]

Subjectively, I notice no difference between the releases in any perceivable performance. And, as the release still fits on a single 700 megabyte CD, I don't find it bloated any more than it needs to for a one-size-fits-all distribution.

[monkeyking]

I've been using ubuntu for years now,
And I haven't been noticing a difference.
Firefox still locks up occasionally.

I actually find it strange that the overall user experience hasn't improved with all these cpu cores.

[wfp]

Not sure for me it's lighting fast on my machine. Just did a boot chart and loads at 23-sec. I just recently purchased a new machine with vista installed and talk about bloat-ware. It uses a 10Gig partition just for the recovery. Had to make my own recovery cd's, wait i had to make 4 Dvd's. Sounds like he's splitting hairs. He also agreed that benchmarking on one laptop does not give much validity to the benchmarking.

[Saint Angeles]

XP is getting bloated and slow (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6070639&postcount=2)

[Phantom784]

I find my system usually becomes slow after using it for a while, because I tend to install stuff. Whenever a new release comes out, I always do a fresh install, and it seams lightning fast compared to my old install. I usually manage to bog it down during the six months between releases, and by the time the next release comes out, I desperately need to reinstall.

[FuturePilot]

Nope. Intrepid is actually faster than Hardy on my PC. :)

[gn2]

On older lower spec hardware, the answer is a very definite yes.
On more recent hardware, it doesn't appear to be a problem.

[OrangeCrate]

Nope. Intrepid is actually faster than Hardy on my PC. :)

+1

It's as quick as a weasel on both of my computers...

Dell Inspiron 530N - 1 gig of RAM
HP Pavilion 520n - 512 meg of RAM

Happy, happy!

:)

[Chilli Bob]

I've only run Intepid as a live CD so far, but it seems to run faster than previous Ubuntu live CDs on my ancient hardware. (PIII)

[chucky chuckaluck]

compared to arch, it's slower and definitely bloated, but compared to openSuse, it's like an army sniper.

[Paqman]

Ubuntu is a distro optimised for usability, not speed. So yes, it probably does tend towards bloat. Does it stack up well against other desktop OSes? Definitely. It's faster than Vista, and comparable to XP, which is getting very old and lacks a lot of features. I'm not a big OS X user, so can't comment on that.

Improvements in boot times are a goal for Jaunty. We've also got several subsystems in the OS that are in transition at the moment (eg: audio). Presumably as the new systems become more integrated we'll lose the legacy systems, but during the transition we have to take a bloat hit. That's an acceptable part of having a well-managed transition.

[Half-Left]

I wish people would stop over using the word bloat, "Ubuntu" could be slow for many reason and nothing what so ever to do with bloat. Like I've said before, the could tune their kernel more and make optimized builds, if the kernel has a bug making it slower than it effects all who use the kernel.

noatime for ext3 speeds everything quiet alot, you should find that it's faster then ever unless you have a issue with your hardware.

[lisati]

Feisty worked at a good speed on my old laptop with 256Mb ram but seems a little bit sluggish at times with Intrepid. Kinda works at an acceptable speed if I don't try to do too many things at once.

[jomiolto]

Depends on what I compare it to. It's fast as cheetah compared to Vista (on my laptop, at least), but all the versions since 6.06 have felt slightly sluggish to me (on several computers) with the default Gnome desktop. KDE isn't much faster, but that's what I'm currently using, since the Folder View plasmoid is IMO the best new thing on desktops for a long time ;)

But, anyway, I answered yes, because I think it's slower than it's supposed to be. I don't see any reason why my desktop should feel slow even with light apps on modern hardware... If I wasn't so enamoured by Folder View at the moment, I'd most likely scrap KDE and Gnome and use iceWM :)

Oh, by the way, I also had FreeBSD installed on my laptop and it worked very swiftly compared to Ubuntu. But it's not a very fair comparison, since it was still using KDE 3...

[Vince4Amy]

The older versions use less memory than the newer versions, however after removing new stuff I don't need (Such as Bluetooth) I can make them match the memory usage of the old versions. But Intrepid as a whole feels faster than Hardy.

[Doug77]

I was wondering about this. Is there some multiplatform benchmarking software like Geekbench (except free) that I could use to get some performance numbers on my vista and ubuntu dual boot?

[Circus-Killer]

i dont really see the point in this thread. i dont think ubuntu is becoming bloated or slower, but lets for one second pretend it did. naturally as time passes, technologies change and so do their demands. to try keep an os at a single size and capabillity forever is just not sensible.

at no time does ubuntu ever claim to be focused and aimed towards old machines or low specs. they do say that it would work great for some old machines.

my advice, if ubuntu is not what you looking for, dont use it. there are hundreds of small distros whose main aim is to focus on old or low spec machines. (eg. puppy linux).

obviously we dont want it to get ridiculous like windows, but for where its at now, there is no problems. ubuntu still cruises on your average or even entry-level pc.

[mkarnicki]

I don't get the point, maybe you just have a lower-class laptop/pc ? My fresh install is faster then ever before (at least I think so after using vista for a few days), and I've been using ubuntu for a few years already.

[KingPin6]

not sure I totally agree, considering you start adding shinier and cooler things and everything will eventually seem like its being bogged down :) however ubuntu still outperforms many others ou there for me.

[athaki]

Nope it's just getting better. 4.10 used ~77mb as a fresh install (under Virtualbox OSE anyway) and 8.10 64 bit (which you cannot compare to 4.10 because a 64 bit os uses more memory) uses ~360mb. Feature wise there are a lot of improvements under the hood and naturally as a WM evolves it adds new features and has decorations that are easier on the eyes. Ergo Ubuntu isn't getting bloated and slow it's just evolving with the rest of technology. One may disagree with me on this and you have all the right to do so if you wish as this is a personal opinion. :popcorn:

[K.Mandla]

Yes, it's bloated and it's slow. But if you're after speed and responsiveness, you would do well to look elsewhere. Ubuntu's appeal is not that it's lightning fast, it's that it works really well on almost every machine, and for almost any person. Only us speed freaks (twitch twitch) care if it's overweight, and chances are if we do care, we've moved to something else.

compared to arch, it's slower and definitely bloated. ...
+1.

Ubuntu is a distro optimised for usability, not speed. So yes, it probably does tend towards bloat.
+1.

[billgoldberg]

Ubuntu is a full featured distro.

Not a lightweigth or custom distro like DSL or Arch.

It runs fine on my friends PIV with 512mb ram and runs fine on my pentium D with 1gb of ram.

--

If you mean compared to other Ubuntu releases then my answer is also no.

If anything, Ibex is faster than all previous releases.

[Calmatory]

Yes. Of course it is. Just like linux kernel is also. And so is any developing software. How else would the new features and stuff come in?

E.g. you have a box full of water. When you want to store more water, you have to expand the box.

Then, if we talk about bloat as "unnecessary stuff", yes. New hardware drivers, which are barely used, better compatibility with rarely used laptops etc. could also be considered as "bloat".

[northicert]

It's not slower. However, I've been running Ubuntu on a 6 gig drive and now I'm against the stops. It was around 1 gig but now I'm down to 13 meg free space. I won't dare do another update until I upgrade the drive.


Well you kinda think small just in case it's something you're not going to like. I do like Ubuntu..

[Sponzenbroekske]

compared to arch, it's slower and definitely bloated, but compared to openSuse, it's like an army sniper.

Is arch really that fast, is it really noticeable?

Can it handle the speeds of a tweaked XP?

(I had a ACER aspire 3680, with a tweaked xp 15secs startup and 5secs shutdown, tried Yoper on it, but something seems to go wrong with the burned cd's so I gave up, now I got a new laptop (signature))

[chucky chuckaluck]

Is arch really that fast, is it really noticeable?

it's noticeably faster, though not impressively so. i use a lot of the 'user friendly' defaults as i don't really know what i'm doing. the bigger difference is in the bloat. arch starts off with next to nothing and you build it up from there. for someone who prefers a minimalist system, this is clearly the way to go.


Can it handle the speeds of a tweaked XP?

my only experience with xp is in fixing my neighbors' messes.


(I had a ACER aspire 3680, with a tweaked xp 15secs startup and 5secs shutdown, tried Yoper on it, but something seems to go wrong with the burned cd's so I gave up, now I got a new laptop (signature))

i reboot so seldomly with arch that the 30sec. startup time is moot point.

[Sponzenbroekske]

quick question
arch: KDE or GNOME?

[Marshal0505]

arch starts off with next to nothing and you build it up from there. for someone who prefers a minimalist system, this is clearly the way to go.




This is why I love my Arch (and pacman), I'm just here for the community :D

[chucky chuckaluck]

quick question
arch: KDE or GNOME?

i used gnome for a 20 seconds and remembered why i hated it, so i might not be the best person to ask about it. kdemod has a huge following. i've used it when it was still kde3 and found it pretty zippy. i really don't like the direction kde4 has gone in, so i'm probably not the one to ask about that, either. most arch users, i think, tend to go more for a window manager and whatever their favorite apps are. there are a lot of openbox users and tiling window manager users. i'm using dwm these days and the only gui apps i use are opera, gimp and gcolor2. i'm definitely not a hardcore user. i just prefer simpler things.

here's a link to kdemod, btw - http://kdemod.ath.cx/

[chucky chuckaluck]

This is why I love my Arch (and pacman), I'm just here for the community :D

don't forget the free coffee.

[wdaniels]

It all depends on hardware I think. I've been using Ubuntu since Dapper and my experience is much the same as others have reported here. On my desktop with more modern hardware it seems to be getting faster yet on my old laptop with 256Mb RAM, integrated graphics etc...it's really quite slow now.

In answer to all the people who just say "so what, that's the way things go as software progresses" I mostly disagree. Sure, it is inevitable to some extent, but we need to be careful both not to let the bloat become disproportionate to the increases in functionality and not to fall into that trap of continually increasing functionality without taking a step back now and then to refactor things for better reuse and efficiency.

Let's not forget that performance and efficiency are vital for what are still the biggest markets for Linux - cheap low-spec devices and high-end servers. The way I see things, Linux being open-source and free makes it the default platform of choice - it is always a case of asking why *not* to use Linux before asking *why* use it. There are obviously plenty of good reasons not to, depending on circumstances, and I hope never to see the day when "it's slow and bloated" finds its way onto that list.

[chucky chuckaluck]

In answer to all the people who just say......

i'm sure you'd enjoy reading the philosophy behind dwm - http://www.suckless.org/common/index.html


Many (open source) hackers are proud if they achieve large amounts of code, because they believe the more lines of code they've written, the more progress they have made. The more progress they have made, the more skilled they are. This is simply a delusion.

Most hackers actually don't care much about code quality. Thus, if they get something working which seems to solve a problem, they stick with it. If this kind of software development is applied to the same source code throughout its entire life-cycle, we're left with large amounts of code, a totally screwed code structure, and a flawed system design. This is because of a lack of conceptual clarity and integrity in the development process.

Code complexity is the mother of bloated, hard to use, and totally inconsistent software. With complex code, problems are solved in suboptimal ways, valuable resources are endlessly tied up, performance slows to a halt, and vulnerabilities become a commonplace. The only solution is to scrap the entire project and rewrite it from scratch.

The bad news: quality rewrites rarely happen, because hackers are proud of large amounts of code. They think they understand the complexity in the code, thus there's no need to rewrite it. They think of themselves as masterminds, understanding what others can never hope to grasp. To these types, complex software is the ideal.

Ingenious ideas are simple. Ingenious software is simple. Simplicity is the heart of the Unix philosophy. The more code lines you have removed, the more progress you have made. As the number of lines of code in your software shrinks, the more skilled you have become and the less your software sucks.

[Sponzenbroekske]

i used gnome for a 20 seconds and remembered why i hated it, so i might not be the best person to ask about it. kdemod has a huge following. i've used it when it was still kde3 and found it pretty zippy. i really don't like the direction kde4 has gone in, so i'm probably not the one to ask about that, either. most arch users, i think, tend to go more for a window manager and whatever their favorite apps are. there are a lot of openbox users and tiling window manager users. i'm using dwm these days and the only gui apps i use are opera, gimp and gcolor2. i'm definitely not a hardcore user. i just prefer simpler things.

here's a link to kdemod, btw - http://kdemod.ath.cx/

So from your explanation it seems that there is no GUI shipped with the install, like with Gentoo.

[Sponzenbroekske]

i used gnome for a 20 seconds and remembered why i hated it, so i might not be the best person to ask about it. kdemod has a huge following. i've used it when it was still kde3 and found it pretty zippy. i really don't like the direction kde4 has gone in, so i'm probably not the one to ask about that, either. most arch users, i think, tend to go more for a window manager and whatever their favorite apps are. there are a lot of openbox users and tiling window manager users. i'm using dwm these days and the only gui apps i use are opera, gimp and gcolor2. i'm definitely not a hardcore user. i just prefer simpler things.

here's a link to kdemod, btw - http://kdemod.ath.cx/

So from your explanation it seems that there is no GUI shipped with the install, like with Gentoo.


And my FF is really slow today, talking about bloated.

EDIT/ sry for the double post, its the FF thats so slow, so I punched the button twice, so now its in pairs :p

[will1911a1]

this is why i love my arch (and pacman), i'm just here for the community :d

+1

[chucky chuckaluck]

So from your explanation it seems that there is no GUI shipped with the install, like with Gentoo.

right, what you end up with when you finish your installation is a console. the installation is an ncurses(i think) text installation. the arch guide and beginners' guide are extremely well written and thorough. if one uses them, it's hard to blow the installation. the installation takes about 20 minutes (unlike gentoo, in that regard).



And my FF is really slow today, talking about bloated.

EDIT/ sry for the double post, its the FF thats so slow, so I punched the button twice, so now its in pairs :p

i think there's something wrong with ubuntu forums. i'm having the same trouble in both opera and elinks.

[ericesque]

For those of you who didn't click through to the article, you should probably know that it's an Adrian Kingsley-Hughes article. The guy is worst of the worst at ZDnet. His primary function is to drive traffic to the site with inflammatory headlines, half truths, and cheap 'journalism'. I've read enough of his articles now to know they're never worth my time.
If I click through to a ZDnet article and see that bearded pudgy face of his, I just hit the back button -- though I'm getting pretty good at identifying an Adrian article simply by its headline.

[markp1989]

i think that ubuntu has been getting slower since 7.04, i tried intrepid , and im not going to use it for a while.took me a while to get the mouse and keyboard to work in X then the nvidia drivers wont load properly during boot.

Im in the middle of installin arch, il see how that goes, otherwise it will be back to gusty or hardy for me .

[chucky chuckaluck]

For those of you who didn't click through to the article, you should probably know that it's an Adrian Kingsley-Hughes article. The guy is worst of the worst at ZDnet. His primary function is to drive traffic to the site with inflammatory headlines, half truths, and cheap 'journalism'. I've read enough of his articles now to know they're never worth my time.
If I click through to a ZDnet article and see that bearded pudgy face of his, I just hit the back button -- though I'm getting pretty good at identifying an Adrian article simply by its headline.

but, his article was based on tests done by phoronix, as discussed in an article by michael larabel (whoever tf he is) - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
no point shooting the messenger.

[SomeGuyDude]

i used gnome for a 20 seconds and remembered why i hated it, so i might not be the best person to ask about it. kdemod has a huge following. i've used it when it was still kde3 and found it pretty zippy. i really don't like the direction kde4 has gone in, so i'm probably not the one to ask about that, either. most arch users, i think, tend to go more for a window manager and whatever their favorite apps are. there are a lot of openbox users and tiling window manager users. i'm using dwm these days and the only gui apps i use are opera, gimp and gcolor2. i'm definitely not a hardcore user. i just prefer simpler things.

here's a link to kdemod, btw - http://kdemod.ath.cx/

KDEmod was an absolute mess when I tried it (the 4.1 version). On startup it was the shiniest and prettiest thing ever, but it just was not a smooth or remotely snappy experience. I lasted somewhere in the area of a half hour with it before getting annoyed.

As for Arch's speed, I'll say that GNOME is a lot faster than Ubuntu. I can't compare the *boxes or anything else since aside from a few disastrous attempts at Xfce, that's all I used in Ubuntu.

And as for Intrepid, I thought it was slicker than Gutsy or Hardy from the betas. Definitely a step forward. For my money, not nearly as huge a step forward as Feisty to Gutsy, but that's probably because Gutsy worked and Feisty didn't.

[cmat]

Uhh, benchmarking individual components isn't really a good indication of OS performance. Of course things will slow down slightly. It's like running Windows 98 and comparing it to Vista on the same machine. Not to mention more components were added which overall improve the user experience but add slight performance bottlenecks.

Biggest slowdowns I have come from the terrible drivers nvidia throws out there.

[HellNoire]

Compared to Windows, any version, and Ubuntu for me speeds ahead.

Compared to Puppy Linux, it lags but understandable since Puppy is meant for weaker PCs.. and mine's a beast (a beauty, but a little dated on the video card [1999])

But consitering how much I tear out of an install, I'm not really that shocked to be honest that people do say it's slow. If you have a stock install, it can be very slow.

[mentallaxative]

So, is it acceptable for distros to become progressively slower with each new release?

The underlying assumption I'm reading here is "no", but I wonder how much you can add in terms of features and still expect dazzling performance.

[cardinals_fan]

The underlying assumption I'm reading here is "no", but I wonder how much you can add in terms of features and still expect dazzling performance.
That depends on what you consider "features".

[ddaavviidd]

Slow and bloated? I run Ubuntu 8.10 with Gnome on my five year old second hand laptop (Pentum M 1600 Mhz, 1 Gb RAM) with no problems. I don't run the 3d effects, but I could if I wanted to. When I bought this laptop dirt cheap a few months ago I thought I'd have to use Openbox or some other minimal GUI for it not to be frustratingly slow, but Gnome works just fine! I wouldn't want to try installing Vista on it...

[Calmatory]

So, is it acceptable for distros to become progressively slower with each new release?

The underlying assumption I'm reading here is "no", but I wonder how much you can add in terms of features and still expect dazzling performance.

My point exactly. Bloated and slow software is the reason for new hardware. :)

[jomiolto]

... all the versions since 6.06 have felt slightly sluggish to me ...

Seems like I spoke a bit too soon: I did a fresh installation of Intrepid and it seems very snappy compared to my older installation (which was updated from the beta) and certainly seems faster than 8.04 ever was for me. :cool: (Now I'm just left wondering why my older installation was so noticeably slower on the desktop...)