Linked by David Adams on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 17:23 UTC
Hot on the heels of our previous story outlining the fiasco that Vista's release has been, TechRepublic's Jason Hiner predicts that Microsoft is aware of its blunder and will respond by making a release of Windows 7 ahead of schedule (primarily by overhauling Vista and calling it Windows 7, it seems) in order to encourage its enterprise clients to upgrade directly from XP to Windows 7.
Thread beginning with comment 311165
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: 1st window I will not use
by DeadFishMan on Thu 24th Apr 2008 12:27
in reply to "RE[2]: 1st window I will not use"
Member since:2006-01-09
So how does "Way too slow, memory hog, too much background services" apply to Ubuntu again?
Well, I don't want to stray too far away from the topic at hand here, but Ubuntu IS slow. Not comparable to Vista in any way and not SUSE-like slow, but it is definitely slower than some distros out there. Considering that they built their house on top of Sid, I always wonder how could they make it that slow...
Edited 2008-04-24 12:29 UTC
RE[3]: 1st window I will not use
by raver31 on Fri 25th Apr 2008 10:10
in reply to "RE[2]: 1st window I will not use"
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes, Ubuntu can be seen as a memory hog and way to slow.
Try a distro like Slackware for example and see your machine fly.
Don't get me wrong, I use Ubuntu too, I just upgraded this machine to 8.04... and WOW !
but there are services enabled by default that I do not need, nor did I ask for them.
Why should I need evolution-alarm-notify to be running all the time when I do not use evolution ? speaking of which, why is it that when I try to
aptitude remove evolution
it also tries to remove ubuntu-desktop
I call that unwanted bloat.
I have searched and searched and cannot find the answer as to why Ubuntu is slow and a memory-hog... 430mb on this machine compared to other desktop distros like Mandriva and Fedora.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
The first point can also be applied to other systems, like Ubuntu for example.
Huh? From my (fairly extensive) use of Ubuntu, I rarely see it top 512MB RAM usage (usually in the 350-400MB range - this is with no swap usage), compared to Vista, which can barely boot in that (and has to use a significant amount of swap/pagefile), on my system (3.5GB RAM) it uses about 1GB idling.
As for speed, (X)Ubuntu runs acceptably on my old P-II 400Mhz laptop, I'd like to see someone try to run Vista on something that old.
With background services, both OS's use them extensively, but I've never had one cause problems on Ubuntu, whereas on Vista I regularly experience slowdowns caused by background services (usually TrustedInstaller).
So how does "Way too slow, memory hog, too much background services" apply to Ubuntu again?