Ubuntu 8.10 running slower than Windows XP why?

Hi, I just installed Ubuntu 8.10 on a Dell Inspiron 2650 1.6-GHz Pentium 4 with 512 ram and it seems to be running slower than windows XP, and I’m surprised because I previously installed Ubuntu 8.04 on onother Dell (newer machine 2.8 AMD dual core) and it runs faster than Windows Vista, that is why I decided to install it on this machine because I thought it was going to run faster than xp. Also when I turn it on it takes a long time to start. I’m a little disappointed because I don’t want to go back to xp.

Is this normal? Is Ubunutu slower than widows xp?

Any idea why is this slower?

Thanks

fs_tigre said:

Is this normal? Is Ubunutu slower than widows xp?

Any idea why is this slower?

Without some details of what "slower" and "faster" mean, how would we know?

Would you care to elaborate?

In my experience,

XP<Ubuntu<Vista

However, Ubuntu is superior to XP in so many ways, I can't really complain that it's a tiny bit slower. Plus I have switched to faster Linux distros on most of my computers, some based on Ubuntu, some not. :)

For the same reason that XP is slower than Win95, if run on the same hardware. It stands to reason that Intrepid would be designed with more powerful computers in mind than an OS released 7 years ago.

I find 8.10 considerably slower than 8.04. Definitely prefer 8.04.

XP was never designed for Duel core processing, while Linux is. That maybe why you see an increase in speed there.

XP was also designed to run on computers built in 1999. Here is the reccomended system 300 MHz is recommended 128 MB is recommended At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive (800 x 600)or higher resolution Sound card Speakers or headphones

While Ubuntu recomends 700 MHz x86 processor 384 MB of system memory (RAM) 8 GB of disk space 1024x768 resolution Sound card A network or Internet connection

just form that you notice XP will run on an older system

LowSky said: XP was never designed for Duel core processing, while Linux is. That maybe why you see an increase in speed there.

XP handles dual cores just fine.

Hi Slim Odds,

I know I probably don&#8217;t know how to ask technical questions but I really thought this was a simple question. Is Ubuntu faster than xp? Sorry &#8230;

fs_tigre said: Hi Slim Odds,

I know I probably don’t know how to ask technical questions but I really thought this was a simple question. Is Ubuntu faster than xp? Sorry …

Operating systems with graphical interfaces are extremely complex beasts. I was not knocking you, just trying to make the point that there is no simple slow/fast answer.

Often times it is a perceived speed based on the responsiveness of the GUI.

Ubuntu (and linux in general) is very efficient with resources, meaning that it is very fast. Vista has all kinds of crap specifically designed to bind the user down (DRM). This makes it a slow pig. Less so with XP.

So, really, there is no simple answer.

This is a recurring and subjective topic.

Moved to recurring discussions.

Well that system is near the recommended requirements for Ubuntu 8.10 and it far exceeds the recommended requirements for Windows XP so it's kind of a no brainer which one is going to run faster. That being said Gnome should be just fine on 512 MB of ram. I'm running on 1 GB of ram and I don't notice a difference between my XP and Ubuntu installations really. (even if I pop out a stick of ram and go with 512 they are about the same speeds)

On the other hand are you sure you have the graphics drivers installed correctly under Ubuntu? Somtimes that can make everything (scrolling in firefox etc...) quite un-snappy.

Another option is if you went for a lighter DE (Desktop Enviroment)or a WM (Window Manager) for Ubuntu 8.10 it should make things much more snappy for you. .

There are a ton of DE/WM's out there, xfce is an example of a lighter DE, or perhaps a WM like icewm, fluxbox, or openbox)

fs_tigre said: Hi,

I just installed Ubuntu 8.10 on a Dell Inspiron 2650 1.6-GHz Pentium 4 with 512 ram and it seems to be running slower than windows XP, and I’m surprised because I previously installed Ubuntu 8.04 on onother Dell (newer machine 2.8 AMD dual core) and it runs faster than Windows Vista, that is why I decided to install it on this machine because I thought it was going to run faster than xp. Also when I turn it on it takes a long time to start. I’m a little disappointed because I don’t want to go back to xp.

Is this normal? Is Ubunutu slower than widows xp?

Any idea why is this slower?

Thanks

How are you setting up the partitions? what kind of partition is it on? Did you create a swap?

I think the Original Poster is being honest with himself, unlike most Ubuntu users. I also experienced this: every time my Ubuntu install was no faster than my Vista install.

Hi,

First of all thank you all for your help. I think I will switch back to Windows Xp (my nightmare). Last night when I turned my computer on it said that I had 160 updates and asked me if wanted to download and install the them I clicked yes and it started downloading than installing them, in the middle of the process an error occurred then I tried to cancel the installation but it was not responding so I hold the power button for a few seconds to turn it off manually, when I pressed this button again to turn it back on a blue message pop up warning me about an error clicked ok and after that the computer doesn’t come on it just sits there showing just text with an error, anyways I think this is too advanced for me so I will go back to XP.

Thanks, Fs_tigre

On my Dell Inspiron 1501, I find Ubuntu 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10 slower than XP, Vista, and 7, each with a clean install. When I say slower, I mean at launching programs such as GEdit, Terminal, Firefox, rendering pages & scrolling, and yes I have all my drivers up-to-date. Even on my desktop, Windows out-performs Linux.

On some of the machines at school even this one quad-core, Windows was out-performing Linux at everything. Maybe it's just me, but I saw various Ubuntus, Xubuntus, etc. on various machines and Windows just blows it away. Now, if you have Windows Vista with 512 megs of RAM, the Ubuntu family does seem to out-perform it. With 2 gigs of RAM on the same machine, Vista seems faster.

Very odd... maybe Microsoft does something that makes all their OS's seem fast.

Disable unwanted startup services like tracker if you don't need it.

Yes, Ubuntu is slower than Windows XP, but not if you have your security options turned on.

Once you put in your firewall, anti-virus scanner, and anti-spyware in Windows XP, it will run much slower than Ubuntu (even when Ubuntu is running similar components).

Plus, bootup on windows XP will be interminable waiting for the security components.

Sure, you can run Windows XP "bare", but then you are a just a fool with a stopwatch.

Plus, most new computers have 64-bit CPUs. You can speed up operation considerably using 64-bit Ubuntu, which you can install for, well, free.

Almost no one I know has 64-bit windows XP, nor are they willing to shell out an extra $100-$200 to upgrade to it.

If you compare the free Ubuntu 64-bit to the $200 Windows XP 32-bit, then Ubuntu is wayyyyy faster.

Yes, it's comparing free apples to expensive oranges, but there it is.

vahnx said: On my Dell Inspiron 1501, I find Ubuntu 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10 slower than XP, Vista, and 7, each with a clean install. When I say slower, I mean at launching programs such as GEdit, Terminal, Firefox, rendering pages & scrolling, and yes I have all my drivers up-to-date. Even on my desktop, Windows out-performs Linux.

On some of the machines at school even this one quad-core, Windows was out-performing Windows at everything. Maybe it's just me, but I saw various Ubuntus, Xubuntus, etc. on various machines and Windows just blows it away. Now, if you have Windows Vista with 512 megs of RAM, the Ubuntu family does seem to out-perform it. With 2 gigs of RAM on the same machine, Vista seems faster.

Very odd... maybe Microsoft does something that makes all their OS's seem fast.

This is the first time I have ever heard somebody say this. I have seen ubuntu vs windows vista and xp on three different computers and windows just blows. Windows Vista idles at 512mb of ram. That's how much crap it runs without you even installing or running anything of choice. I use Vista from the day it released up until about 3 weeks ago. I used to dual boot Ubuntu and Vista but Vista crashed all the time. I have yet to see Ubuntu show me "not responding" more than once. When it did I just closed it and it ended instantly. With Windows I had to open cmd and do taskkill for it to actually end.

Check out my SS of my cpu usage with Ubuntu..

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ex0vh2.png

my ubuntu is faster than vista but slower than xp

I dual-boot between XP and Ubuntu 8.10 and can say that Ubuntu is *much* slower, especially with Firefox.

Average page load times for Firefox in XP is typically < 3s while the same pages loading in Firefox in Ubuntu averages > 12s. This is with the Firefox 3 with the same add-ons and themes except the XP side has an additional add-on for the IE tab.

I will do some trial runs with other applications (e.g. OpenOffice, etc) and compare those as well.

In case anyone is wondering, my system is pretty well setup: Intel Dual Core 2 Duo @ 2GHz 2GB RAM 100 GB 7500RPM ATI X1400

perspectoff said: Yes, Ubuntu is slower than Windows XP, but not if you have your security options turned on.

Once you put in your firewall, anti-virus scanner, and anti-spyware in Windows XP, it will run much slower than Ubuntu (even when Ubuntu is running similar components).

That is if you use a software firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware. Personally, I don't run any security software in either Windows or Linux, and I run as Administrator/Root. As long as you are smart with what you are doing and run un-tested apps in a sandboxed environment/dummy machine (that goes for both Windows and Linux), they are equally as secure. Plus, keep your system up-to-date with all patches.

That said, XP remains the fastest mainstream OS out there. Now with Vista and 7, they are horribly slow on machines with 512 megs of RAM, yet with 2 gigs of RAM I find them faster than Ubuntu. Maybe it's just my experiences but I swear Ubuntu just seems slow, especially with simple tasks such as web browsing or launching media players, folders, etc.

Because XP was released in 2001, and Intrepid was released less than two months ago. 7 years difference. Do you expect recent cames like Call of Dute 5 to run well on a 7 year old box? No! Same principle. And don't judge the speed of Linux just on Ubuntu. My Arch setup could probably outperform Win98, even on an old box designed for 98.

When you say ubuntu is slower it can be misleading.. and you miss the point that ubuntu as an OS or Ubuntu the Gnome version of the Ubuntu OS this are two different things. ubuntu the OS has an advantage over XP in the sense that you can always use version like Xubuntu which uses the (xfce desktop environment) which is meant for systems with low hardware that wont run well with gnome. you can also install lxde which in my opinion is lighter than even xubuntu. and more over for every applications like rhythmbox or amarok there are lighter alternatives that work just as fine on a low hardware system for music u can install sonata a MDP client or listen which i find ligter compared to rhythmbox amarok or banshee. you might also want to try midori,seamonkey,dilo,kazehakase all very good all very fast.. the list goes on .. although admit you have to do a little googling to find tools that would fit your hardware needs. but the thing about linux is that there is always a way out there .. something not available with windows.. that is why linux always out performs windows on netbooks. so the next you hear linux is faster than windows on a low hardware. that statement is mostly not talking about the latest intrepid ibex which compiz fusion and all its glory.

my Kubuntu 8.10 live CD is running better than my Kubuntu 7.10 install.

And thus faster than Windoes :lolflag:.

LowSky said: XP was never designed for Duel core processing, while Linux is. That maybe why you see an increase in speed there.

XP was also designed to run on computers built in 1999. Here is the reccomended system 300 MHz is recommended 128 MB is recommended At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive (800 x 600)or higher resolution Sound card Speakers or headphones

While Ubuntu recomends 700 MHz x86 processor 384 MB of system memory (RAM) 8 GB of disk space 1024x768 resolution Sound card A network or Internet connection

just form that you notice XP will run on an older system

My laptop (see sig) is dual-core, but Ubuntu's not really faster than Vista (except when using lots of programs).