Things that you dislike in Ubuntu

[RJARRRPCGP]

Windows actually hammers the swap more. Linux rarely uses swap, even with only 512 MB of RAM.

[Bean7]

Ubuntu something don't work properly with my PC hardware, it's lack some driver ... etc. It's awesome if Ubuntu can fix it and maybe support game (or depend on game provider)

[cariboo]

One of the big problems with installing java, is that due to licensing issues, Ubuntu can no longer include it in the repositories. There are numerous solutions available, including this wiki page:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Java

Acrobat reader is included in the partner repositories, so all you have to do is enable them it they aren't. The only problem I see is that both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions install all the multi-arch dependencies.

For wine, again refer to the Community documentation here:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Wine

[sireangelus]

Windows actually hammers the swap more. Linux rarely uses swap, even with only 512 MB of RAM.

lol- i think we lack a basic understanding of WHY a computer uses swap.
A computer uses swap when the RAM approaches or is full.

Linux used to be a lot less fat. So it used less ram than windows, and in turn, it used less swap.

In any case, how and when you use the swap does not affect the amount of ram used by the system by simply idling. the default ubuntu configuration (13.04)would force any computer with less than 768mb pf ram to swap to simply reach the desktop. if you where to actually launch any browser( that by themselves can take at least 200mb and with 5-6 tabs open that count can easly reach 500-600mb ) you would find yourself in an impossible to use system. Best thing you could do to regain control of the system would be kill the lightdm process and start it again. but you would come easily to the same problem again and again- kubuntu uses half of the ram at start, so you would have a computer waay much more usable.

[monkeybrain2012]

lol- i think we lack a basic understanding of WHY a computer uses swap.

In any case, how and when you use the swap does not affect the amount of ram used by the system by simply idling. the default ubuntu configuration (13.04)would force any computer with less than 768mb pf ram to swap to simply reach the desktop.

I don't know how many people are still running systems with less than 768mb of Ram. Ubuntu is a modern distro and Unity its new face to the world, It wants to look nice and sexy to attract new users and it wants to work with shiny new machines that you can display in shop windows, Unity is not catering to n-th handed machines from the last century.

But it is not like you have no choice if you have older or weaker hardware. I personally would not install Ubuntu with Unity on anything with less than 2G of Ram because it is not optimized for them, Lubuntu is exactly made for such hardware, it is still the Ubuntu but with a light DE. For still older hardware you have something like puppy Linux. If you choose the wrong DE for your specs whose fault is that? Linux is not meant to be a one size fits all solution, that's why you have so many options and possibilities.

[sireangelus]

I don't know how many people are still running systemswith less than 768mb of Ram. The question is why should Ubuntu's default DE be catering to ancient hardware? It wants to look nice and sexy to attract new users and it wants to work with shiny new machines that you can show in shop windows, not n-th handed machines from your garage.

But it is not like you have no choice if you have older or weaker hardware. I personally would not install Ubuntu on old or weak machines with Unity because it is not designed for them, Lubuntu is exactly made for such hardware, it is still the Ubuntu but with a light DE. If you choose the wrong DE for your specs whose fault is that? Linux is not meant to be a one size fits all solution, that's why you have so many options and possibilities.

it's not the point. the point is... that ubuntu is using MORE RAM than windows 8. And double of Kubuntu. So there is something very wrong here: while windows 7 and 8 have gone toward the goal of REDUCING system resources(and windows 8.1 is gonna do this AGAIN, the dev leaked builds shows this clearly) used by the system,unity uses MORE resources.And since it seems to be possible to use less resources with KDE4(a piece of software waay more complex than unity) i don't see why they should not and cannot try to reduce cpu and ram and gpu usage for the sake of a leaner and faster experience. not to speak of the enormous difference between the complexity of windows with all of it's services, drivers and everythin vs UNITY... it's something to laugh at.

[monkeybrain2012]

Win always uses less ram because it more readily drops to swap. Linux would try to run up ram instead of dropping to swap because it is fast. It is by design. You can make it drop to swap more readily if you have not enough Ram by adjusting vm.swappiness.

I have Kubuntu and Ubuntu on the same machine (Kubuntu on an external drive), I haven't monitored the ram but performance wise I always find KDE comparatively slower than Unity (I also had Ubuntu on the external during testing so the external hard drive is not the issue)

I think some of that maybe hardware related or related to particular implementation. E.g (on the same machine) Gnome shell is brazing fast in Debian and Fedora but very slow in Ubuntu (Unity is fast)

[sireangelus]

Win always uses less ram because it more readily drops to swap. Linux would try to run up ram instead of dropping to swap because it is fast. It is by design. You can make it drop to swap more readily if you have not enough Ram by adjusting vm.swappiness.

I have Kubuntu and Ubuntu on the same machine (Kubuntu on an external drive), I haven't monitored the ram but performance wise I always find KDE comparatively slower than Unity (I also had Ubuntu on the external during testing so the external hard drive is not the issue)

I think some of that maybe hardware related or related to particular implementation. E.g (on the same machine) Gnome shell is brazing fast in Debian and Fedora but very slow in Ubuntu (Unity is fast)

THIS-IS-NOT-ABOUT-HOW-SWAP-IS-USED. On my system i have 8gb of ram and i keep NO SWAP.So what have you to say now? I say that UNITY USES MORE RAM THAN WINDOWS 8 DOING A LOT LESS.(i'm talking both default and just having the drivers installed)and so all the talk about LINUX USING LESS RESOURCES THAN WINDOWS ARE NOT TRUE IN THE CASE OF UBUNTU IF THIS TREND IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE! I will remind you that in the ram that windows 8 uses there is the WHOLE METRO OVERLAY WITH ALL THE LIVE TILES THAT ARE CONSTANTLY UPDATING THEIR CONTENT WITHOUT YOU NOTICING THE IMPACT ON RAM OR CPU.It's pratically running 2 DEs at the same time.

So now that ubuntu is bloated it's ok because it's linux, when windows is bloated it's a piece of crap!??

[monkeybrain2012]

THIS-IS-NOT-ABOUT-HOW-SWAP-IS-USED. On my system i have 8gb of ram and i keep NO SWAP.So what have you to say now? I say that UNITY USES MORE RAM THAN WINDOWS 8 DOING A LOT LESS.(i'm talking both default and just having the drivers installed)and so all the talk about LINUX USING LESS RESOURCES THAN WINDOWS ARE NOT TRUE IN THE CASE OF UBUNTU IF THIS TREND IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE! I will remind you that in the ram that windows 8 uses there is the WHOLE METRO OVERLAY WITH ALL THE LIVE TILES THAT ARE CONSTANTLY UPDATING THEIR CONTENT WITHOUT YOU NOTICING THE IMPACT ON RAM OR CPU.

So now that ubuntu is bloated it's ok because it's linux, when windows is bloated it's a piece of crap!??

And you are also benchmarking with an Optimus machine which does not even meant to support Linux. You are using incompatible hardware so what are you complaining about?

[craig10x]

On same laptop...a toshiba 17" with 4 gb ram and i3 intel processor and graphics...purchased 6 months ago...
Original Windows 7 install: used approx 1.5-1.8 GB ram
Ubuntu 13.04 w/unity install (which replaced it) uses approx 775-850 MB ram

So, which uses more ram...windows or ubuntu w/unity...i think the answer would be obvious...