Redmond, WA > I Love Microsoft
Windows 7 in contrast to Windows 1.0 is quite awesome
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Lead Head on 4 May 2010, 05:57 ---I too personally think Windows 7 is quite possible the best one to date, but it still has its quirks.
Ubuntu has a lot of quirks too. I have it installed on another machine, a fairly modest one: 2Ghz Athlon 64, 512MB RAM, ATI x800 XT. Sounds fairly decent right? Yet Ubuntu still gets unusably sluggish at times. I'll just be using Firefox, a couple of tabs open and suddenly the machine will completely lock up, and start flogging the harddrive for no apparent reason. It will eventually unfreeze, but will usually be very sluggish still flogging the harddrive. Probably 8 out of every 10 times I walk by the computer, the red HDD activity light will be on and it'll be flogging the drive - even just sitting in an idle state with the video output turned off. No idea why it does this?
--- End quote ---
Are your disks slow? An old computer would have slow disks, and if they've been used a lot (as mine has), they will have none of the "performance" they used to.
If you want to run ubuntu on an old computer, run an older version of it. 8.04 is supported until April 2011: that's what I happen to have installed, and it works fine. I installed 10.04 the other day and it was much too slow for me, I think that was to a different disk and all my disks are almost dead, but by buying more ram and a reliably non-ancient disk I'd expect it to be better. THERE IS a trend of even the cheapest new computers nowadays having more ram (at LEAST one gb), therefore I don't think it is such a bad thing that modern ubunuts use that up, and crawl on the older computers.
Why do people have older computers for gnu/linux distributions anyhow in these days? I reject the idea that decade-old computers should be the target platform for modern distros. I'm not saying ubuntu SHOULD be slow on these computers, but I think if I can go out and buy a computer for 300 quid and get a perfect modern ubuntu experience, that's an important metric, but computers almost a decade old aren't.
Aloone_Jonez:
Lol read this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/using-windows-7-may-lead-to-murder/
worker201:
^ That article is absolutely preposterous. And yet, totally believable.
Refalm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GWQgb015Lc
Way funnier than Friends.
Lead Head:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 9 May 2010, 01:05 ---
--- Quote from: Lead Head on 4 May 2010, 05:57 ---I too personally think Windows 7 is quite possible the best one to date, but it still has its quirks.
Ubuntu has a lot of quirks too. I have it installed on another machine, a fairly modest one: 2Ghz Athlon 64, 512MB RAM, ATI x800 XT. Sounds fairly decent right? Yet Ubuntu still gets unusably sluggish at times. I'll just be using Firefox, a couple of tabs open and suddenly the machine will completely lock up, and start flogging the harddrive for no apparent reason. It will eventually unfreeze, but will usually be very sluggish still flogging the harddrive. Probably 8 out of every 10 times I walk by the computer, the red HDD activity light will be on and it'll be flogging the drive - even just sitting in an idle state with the video output turned off. No idea why it does this?
--- End quote ---
Are your disks slow? An old computer would have slow disks, and if they've been used a lot (as mine has), they will have none of the "performance" they used to.
If you want to run ubuntu on an old computer, run an older version of it. 8.04 is supported until April 2011: that's what I happen to have installed, and it works fine. I installed 10.04 the other day and it was much too slow for me, I think that was to a different disk and all my disks are almost dead, but by buying more ram and a reliably non-ancient disk I'd expect it to be better. THERE IS a trend of even the cheapest new computers nowadays having more ram (at LEAST one gb), therefore I don't think it is such a bad thing that modern ubunuts use that up, and crawl on the older computers.
Why do people have older computers for gnu/linux distributions anyhow in these days? I reject the idea that decade-old computers should be the target platform for modern distros. I'm not saying ubuntu SHOULD be slow on these computers, but I think if I can go out and buy a computer for 300 quid and get a perfect modern ubuntu experience, that's an important metric, but computers almost a decade old aren't.
--- End quote ---
But this computer isn't a decade old, its just barely 5 years old. What I'm asking is why does Windows XP perform acceptably on the same system doing the same non-intensive tasks, while Ubuntu 8.10 (9.04? Forgot which one) is sluggish beyond belief.
I agree that *nix shouldn't be "banished" to older systems, but for the relative lack of eye candy and bling I don't understand why its so taxing on the system.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version