LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2009, 03:38 PM   #1
stratotak
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Today Debian . Tomorrow ..??
Posts: 386

Rep: Reputation: 39
Ubuntu is starting to suck..


Last time I used Ubunta was when it was version 7..I still have 5.10 cd's laying around.It ran fine but just never took to Ubuntu.Debian is my choice of distro.I just decided to try latest ubuntu.It was a let down.It handled like a 1973 Eldorado with bald,flat tires.It was sluggish and just felt slow.The pc isnt the newest and fastest.Athlon XP clocked at 2 ghz..with a 1 gig memory.Ubuntu 7 was snappy and responsive..but latest version is just awfully slow.Is it just me?It seems in trying to make it easier to use..there screwing it up.Ububtu is the vista of linux now..Well,maybe that is an exaggeration..
 
Old 02-05-2009, 03:52 PM   #2
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
And your question is???

time to try something different, n'est-ce pas?
 
Old 02-05-2009, 04:07 PM   #3
stratotak
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Today Debian . Tomorrow ..??
Posts: 386

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 39
I guess there is a question buried in there somewhere...Are people with systems similar to mine and have used older versions of Ubuntu finding the same thing when running latest versions of Ububtu??
 
Old 02-05-2009, 04:11 PM   #4
jstephens84
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville
Distribution: Manjaro, RHEL, CentOS
Posts: 2,098

Rep: Reputation: 102Reputation: 102
I can agree alittle with Ubuntu 8.10 running slow but 8.04 was great. Somethings to try first would be removing unwanted modules. Have you tried opening up a thread and ask specific questions or searched for optimizing ubuntu?
 
Old 02-05-2009, 04:24 PM   #5
Matir
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 8,507

Rep: Reputation: 123Reputation: 123
I run Ubuntu 8.10 on a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of Memory, and on a 2 GHz C2D. On both systems, I find it responsive and efficient.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 04:43 PM   #6
craigevil
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Distribution: Debian Sid
Posts: 4,734
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461
Ubuntu Unleashed: Tweak and optimize, and increase Ubuntu Hardy Heron Boot and Application Startup times dramatically!
http://www.ubuntu-unleashed.com/2008...inux-boot.html

Turning off any processes you do not need is probably the best way to speed things up. I have seen a default ubuntu install have 140+ processes running after Gnome has started while my Debian install has around 60 when lxde starts and around 80 when Kde is running.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 04:58 PM   #7
alan_ri
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Croatia
Distribution: Debian GNU/Linux
Posts: 1,733
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 127Reputation: 127
Intel Pentium 4 Dual Core 1.6 GHz,1 GB RAM,Ubuntu 8.04.2,the system flies.I've used 7.10 and I find 8.04.2 faster and that's without any tweaking on both systems.It's all in your hands and in your mind.

Last edited by alan_ri; 02-05-2009 at 05:00 PM.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 06:08 PM   #8
eerok
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Mint, Debian
Posts: 168

Rep: Reputation: 32
A only like rolling release distros these days: Arch, Debian Testing, Sidux, and Zenwalk snapshot are all I've been bothering with. Why? Because I'm sick of having to upgrade to new versions and being disappointed with stupid changes they've made or cruft they've added. I think Arch and Debian Testing are probably the ideal distros for a hardcore pragmatist like me, since I can start off with bare metal and build up in a way that suits my needs. I still like Sidux (Xfce) a lot, though.

I used Ubuntu for a year once. I liked it for that year, then hated it the next year and every year since because it just didn't work as well. Life's too short for that nonsense. I'll take control and do it my way, thanks very much

Anyway, if you're unhappy, do something different. End of problem. It's not as if Linux doesn't offer any choices.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 05:40 AM   #9
stratotak
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Today Debian . Tomorrow ..??
Posts: 386

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 39
Well..seems Im not the only ones with this opinion...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...earch&aq=f&oq=
 
Old 02-06-2009, 07:10 AM   #10
arckane
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo/Debian/Ubuntu
Posts: 307

Rep: Reputation: 38
I agree with you. As they make Ubuntu 'one-size-fits-all' it'll end up slowing down. But if you want speed and know exactly what setup you want you'll use Gentoo as it won't get any faster than that.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 07:20 AM   #11
b0uncer
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Distribution: CentOS, OS X
Posts: 5,131

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
AMD Athlon 64-bit 2*3 GHz (dualcore) with 4 GB RAM, Ubuntu 8.10 runs pretty smoothly. Eeepc with an Intel Atom 1,6 GHz (on battery trimmed down to less than 1 GHz I think) and 1 GB RAM runs equally smoothly. A laptop with AMD Sempron 1,8 GHz and 512 MB RAM, again running smoothly. Desktop with 1,2 GHz AMD Duron and 384 MB RAM, still no sluggishness or slowness in sight. It could be just me, but I'm pretty sure I could get even older machines and still have it run nicely..which makes me wonder why some (quite many?) people say Ubuntu's newer versions are getting slower and slower -- am I just lucky, or is there something I'm missing here?

I'd recommend just trying other distributions out if you feel it's bad, that's the quickest route nowadays. Or at least switching your default desktop environment (Gnome) to something else, that could make a huge difference. Compiling a custom kernel or stopping processes that usually run all the time could help, but in my opinion there are more effective&easy ways (like the above-mentioned desktop or even distribution switching).

Quote:
Originally Posted by arckane View Post
I agree with you. As they make Ubuntu 'one-size-fits-all' it'll end up slowing down. But if you want speed and know exactly what setup you want you'll use Gentoo as it won't get any faster than that.
I'm fairly sure a (Beyond) Linux From Scratch does

Last edited by b0uncer; 02-06-2009 at 07:21 AM.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 08:37 AM   #12
stratotak
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Today Debian . Tomorrow ..??
Posts: 386

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 39
well..i wanted to try ubuntu again because most of the questions on the newbie forum are from Ubuntu users..Most of the times the questions that are asked are easily answered with a google search..Ive responded to posts at times with just a link to a page that took me 5 seconds to find,,,but thats another point..My setup i have now is fast..Debian with Lxde...and when ever possible i use app's that do not depend heavily on Gnome or Kde..For example..to replace Amorok..i use Aqualung to play my shoutcast streams..
and as far as gentoo goes..I dont want to spend hours,days to install Gentoo..thats just nuts to me..Last time i tried Gento was 6 months ago..started at around 7pm..took till after midnight to just get it to point where rebooted ..Energed gnome and went to bed..woke up next morning and had compile error..That is the last time i tried Gentoo..to much hassle to just install it...
 
Old 02-06-2009, 08:41 AM   #13
linuxlover.chaitanya
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: Nagpur, India
Distribution: Cent OS 5/6, Ubuntu Server 10.04
Posts: 4,629

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Intel Pentium 1.8G 1G ram. Writing this from the same machine using Hardy and it feels better than Xp or Vista that others around the office are using.

Forgot to mention Compiz is enabled and also using cubes and all

Last edited by linuxlover.chaitanya; 02-06-2009 at 08:45 AM.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 09:02 AM   #14
jstephens84
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville
Distribution: Manjaro, RHEL, CentOS
Posts: 2,098

Rep: Reputation: 102Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
A only like rolling release distros these days: Arch, Debian Testing, Sidux, and Zenwalk snapshot are all I've been bothering with. Why? Because I'm sick of having to upgrade to new versions and being disappointed with stupid changes they've made or cruft they've added. I think Arch and Debian Testing are probably the ideal distros for a hardcore pragmatist like me, since I can start off with bare metal and build up in a way that suits my needs. I still like Sidux (Xfce) a lot, though.

I used Ubuntu for a year once. I liked it for that year, then hated it the next year and every year since because it just didn't work as well. Life's too short for that nonsense. I'll take control and do it my way, thanks very much

Anyway, if you're unhappy, do something different. End of problem. It's not as if Linux doesn't offer any choices.
I would have to agree. I just switched over to arch from debian and I must say that I am really impressed. The wiki is very well laid out so any troubles I had I was able to solve pretty much myself. Pacman is actually very intuitive.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 10:48 AM   #15
eerok
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Mint, Debian
Posts: 168

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstephens84 View Post
I just switched over to arch from debian and I must say that I am really impressed. The wiki is very well laid out so any troubles I had I was able to solve pretty much myself. Pacman is actually very intuitive.
Yes, Arch is great if you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. It's much more bleeding edge than Debian Sid and much more stable, also (even if it occasionally requires you to stay awake during upgrades). Of course, to be fair, Sid may get more bleeding edge when Lenny is finally made official and all those packages flood in from Experimental... certainly it will get bloodier

I just built a new Arch system on Wednesday to test out ext4, and I'm in love with it all over again. It's a nice lean and mean install with Openbox. I just love starting with bare metal and making a fast machine go even faster.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starting Ubuntu without a bootable CD ddclutch Ubuntu 17 12-31-2008 05:01 AM
Starting Ubuntu krauskopf Linux - Software 1 02-19-2007 04:37 PM
Is it me or does Ubuntu apt-get suck? flipwhy Linux - Newbie 12 09-04-2006 12:16 PM
skype on ubuntu not starting fberna Ubuntu 5 09-16-2005 03:32 PM
Ubuntu not starting up zivs Linux - Newbie 5 05-16-2005 06:26 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration