Read this link.... Ubuntu is getting slower...

[brjoon1021]

This sucks:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... 2008&num=1

[pch.shot]

Have you noticed any slowdown. I haven't. I would take that with a big grain of salt. Probably just not a Linux fan!!

[brjoon1021]

two grains of salt is probably a good idea ...interesting read,though. If true, I hope that they get on it...

As for being anti-Linux, I think that Phoronix is about as fanboy as you can get FOR Linux.

As for benchmarking, I can't speak specifically to that, but - many of you will disagree with what I am about to say - but I have always found that Linux is more sluggish than Windows XP on all of my computers (for years). I have had three laptops and three desktops and I seldom ever have had a distro that was as responsive as my XP installation and that includes the so-called light and fast ones like: Sidux, Zenwalk and Vector. It seems that the window manager distros are quicker but I lose too much functionality to use them, so I stick with KDE, Gnome and XFCE. It seems that a light XFCE distro is about like XP. Vista is slower as far as I can tell, I have it on a laptop.

Case in point: I used to have an old Pentium PRO overclocked to 233 MHz with 192 Megs of RAM. Not a powerhouse, but designed to be a server and run 32 bit apps and OS optimally. XP ran like a scalded cat on it compared to Vector Linux with XFCE. And this was a few years back when Vector was known as lightning fast. I was using Vector 3.4 or 4.3, whichever one that Vector zealots harken back to as the really fast one. I installed other Linuxes on that box and none were as fast as XP. I get kind of tired of Anti-Windows tirades... not that this was one made here by strider5236... I know that was no tirade. I hate Microsoft and their monopolistic tactics but I think XP is prett good with only Ultimate, Mint, PCLinuxOS and Mepis as reasonable alternatives to it. That is why I am running all of the above except for Mint, which lost out to Ultimate.

B.

[pch.shot]

If you want pure speed in an os, there is no comparison to Puppy Linux. It is Slackware so it is not that easy to install drivers and software. But even if you screw it up, you can re-install in <5 minutes. If you have older machines, give it a try. It comes with all the basics, including flash support.
http://www.puppylinux.org/
You can download the iso, burn it, and be up and running in <1/2 hour!!!
p.s. And it's a lot of fun!! Great for kids to learn Linux since it is much closer to pure Linux. I bet you could install it on a 386!!!

[Redeemed]

Just a Newb askin a question ...but isn't Ubuntu 8.10 doing more stuff w/ on the same hardware as the other versions??? for instance....people wig when they can't run vista on 1gb o' ram but XP runs like a "scaleded cat" (i'm really gonna use that one irl...its funny) but doesn't vista have about a million more bells and whistles than xp?? I don't think that was a fair test b/c all it did was a clean installiation...but each installiation gets more bells and whistles that will take up more resources right???

[pch.shot]

Vista(the wow is not now!!) is just a ram hog and needs faster graphics. It doesn't do any more than xp pro does and is an utter waste of time and money!! I doubt that 8.10 will be any slower or faster than 8.04. I've had a brief look at it and it is not that much different. Have you ever used 7.10? It was basically crap(could not find much hardware at all).

[Redeemed]

Oh i'd never go back to anything windows....i'm sold on Linux i was just using it as a poitn of refernce...(much to my shame i have been a windows admin for about 5 years now)

[LeadFingers]

Redeemed:

Have all your Linux OS's been Standard installs, or did you try any speed tweaks?
The reason I ask, is you can tweak any portion of your Linux and see significant improvements in performance.

My first permanent Linux OS (UE1.2), I tweaked to the max looking for very specific improvement,
and was rewarded with a noticeable difference in:
1) improved boot time. (~30 sec from button to complete load.)
2) Apps loaded notably faster. (don't remember the benchmarks )
3) Apps ran faster. (Again didn't save the benchmarks)
4) Improved read/write.

By that time I was already sold but wanted to see what I could squeeze out of it.
As with any system, You can make it faster but it's nice if it's fast to begin with.

Is Ubuntu truly slowing down?
Do a little Informed tweaking and see for yourself.

[ixnod]

Ok read through the article above, and I will have to say that I did not read anywhere that they gave the 64bit version a run. just my two cents cause I believe that the 32 bit is not optimized for multi core procs

My 2 cents.

On another note, is there anywhere that Ultimate Edition has been benchmarked against OrangeBuntu?

[slowflow]

I would wait & see what happens, as there is definitely a problem somewhere! perhaps kernal regressions?, wrong build flags? poor optimization? The ramspeed performance drop of about 50% tells me there is definitely a big problemo somewhere


EDIT
@ this point it's also worth pointing out that these results ONLY apply to the T60 Laptop @ the moment.
So newer builds on different hardware may produce differing results.