Ubuntu is slower than Windows for me

Windows 7 was faster than Ubuntu for me. Everything seems laggy.

I'm running ZevenOS on a Asus eeePC 1001PX.

Can anyone help me figure out why?

I have no idea why you are running ZevonOS on an Asus eeePC 1001PX.

I joke :)

But, could you clarify: are you running the ZevonOS LiveCD (google tells me that is the idea behind ZevonOS)....? LiveCD's are always slow as a snail.

Are you under the impression that ZevonOS is Ubuntu or something...?

Exactly, ZevenOS has nothing to do with Ubuntu. Try the original Ubuntu instead.

earthpigg said: I have no idea why you are running ZevonOS on an Asus eeePC 1001PX.

I joke :)

But, could you clarify: are you running the ZevonOS LiveCD (google tells me that is the idea behind ZevonOS)....?

Are you under the impression that ZevonOS is Ubuntu or something...?

I was under the impression that ZevenOs is based on Ubuntu- from ZevenOS' website

...based on Ubuntu Linux (especially: Xubuntu)

And no, I've installed ZevenOS and am not running it from USB/CD. And actually, the "idea" behind ZevenOS is-

...in order to preserve some of the extraordinary features of the formerly wellknown BeOS operating system (upon the Linux kernel).

ivanovnegro said: Exactly, ZevenOS has nothing to do with Ubuntu.

Try the original Ubuntu instead.

Tried. Same thing. ZevenOS is built on Ubuntu.

I have an Ubuntu-based distribution on my netbook that I prefer to vanilla ubuntu, as well.

Are you asking why ZevenOS proforms differently than Ubuntu? Because it includes different software, and has a different focus for a different audience.

Ubuntu is designed, primarily, to derive revenue from businesses installing it on their full-powered desktop computers and contracting support from Canonical.

Not for guys like you and I to use on our netbooks - various Ubuntu derivatives are better for that, IMO, but we still benefit from the existence of Ubuntu when using its derivatives on our netbooks.

Rennonz said: Tried. Same thing. ZevenOS is built on Ubuntu.

I admit I did not know about it that it is built on Ubuntu but anyway it has nothing to do with Ubuntu. And now instead of saying X is slower as Y, can you exactly explain what is your problem or was your problem with both OS's, error messages, Kernel, hard ware specs, which version, etc, anything what would be of interest to understand what you want. There is a guide about how to ask questions, with your statement nobody will understand anything what you want to say.

Moved to Other OS/Distro Talk

Try pure Ubuntu. It is the best!

Are you asking why ZevenOS proforms differently than Ubuntu? Because it includes different software, and has a different focus for a different audience.

No, Ubuntu performs the same. I've had both on this netbook and both are as laggy. I'm asking why Ubuntu performs slower than Windows 7, despite being lead to believe otherwise.

Ubuntu is designed, primarily, to derive revenue from businesses installing it on their full-powered desktop computers and contracting support from Canonical.

Not for guys like you and I to use on our netbooks - various Ubuntu derivatives are better for that, IMO, but we still benefit from the existence of Ubuntu when using its derivatives on our netbooks.

I think the main Ubuntu website and advertising scheme would say the complete opposite. It's aimed to average joe users (which explains the whole social networking integration and so forth).

That distro is not intended for a netbook.Ubuntu has a version just for netbooks. I use both Win7 and Ubuntu on my box and the performance is the same....with Ubuntu being a little faster at somethings. Try turning off desktop effects.

Rennonz said: No, Ubuntu performs the same. I've had both on this netbook and both are as laggy. I'm asking why Ubuntu performs slower than Windows 7, despite being lead to believe otherwise.

I think the main Ubuntu website and advertising scheme would say the complete opposite. It's aimed to average joe users (which explains the whole social networking integration and so forth).

You aren't using ubuntu. You are using a derivative that was built on ubuntu. Don't believe me? Go to the Debian forums and ask for help with Mint or Ubuntu.

I have W7 and Ubuntu on my netbook and Ubuntu is much faster.

i have never used "ZevenOS", so i cant compare.

but all linux is not the same, even if they are derivatives. Not all are optimized!

for example "elementary os" is said to be faster than the ubuntu version which is based on, so if you want fast, i think you can try it.

here's the review that says its faster: http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/04/elementary-os-review-delight-to-use-few.html

or just give normal ubuntu a try.

anyway, would you mind letting us know exactly in what aspects you find it slower?

Does your NB have an Atom N455? If it is anything less, that's why it's slow.

I admit I did not know about it that it is built on Ubuntu but anyway it has nothing to do with Ubuntu.

If I bought a Volvo and had extra things put in it, would the Volvo maintenance guys just turn me away or give me an idea of what might be the problem?

And now instead of saying X is slower as Y, can you exactly explain what is your problem or was your problem with both OS's, error messages, Kernel, hard ware specs, which version, etc, anything what would be of interest to understand what you want.

There is a guide about how to ask questions, with your statement nobody will understand anything what you want to say.

Scrolling through images, the previews take 5 seconds to show up and so do the images themselves when clicked on. Programs take around the same time to boot up (Firefox included). Things just seem "slow". I have no idea how to tell you what "kernel" this is but regarding hardware, how about this?

CPUIntel® Atom™ N450 ProcessorMemoryDDR2, 2 x SO-DIMM, 1GB/2GBStorage2.5" SATA2 160GB/250GB 5400rpm HDDWireless Data NetworkWLAN 802.11 b/g@2.4GHz Bluetooth V2.1+EDR(Optional)

glossywhite said: Does your NB have an Atom N455? If it is anything less, that's why it's slow.

Ahh it's N450.

But still, Windows was much faster, even over Ubuntu vanilla.

Rennonz said: Ahh it's N450.

But still, Windows was much faster, even over Ubuntu vanilla.

Faster... as a fresh, new NetBook, or have you had it a while? If it is new, no wonder - no crap to clog it up - that'll soon change.

glossywhite said: Faster... as a fresh, new NetBook, or have you had it a while? If it is new, no wonder - no crap to clog it up - that'll soon change.

Yes, it is quite new.

quick question.

how you install ubuntu and its derivatives to your netbook?

madjr said: quick question.

how you install ubuntu and its derivatives to your netbook?

USB-stick installation.

did ya get a pop up thingy telling you you needed to install some graphic drivers?

el_koraco said: did ya get a pop up thingy telling you you needed to install some graphic drivers?

Nope. Or perhaps I overlooked it. Is it possible to do it manually?

@Rennonz

since your hardware is not very fast, i would recommend an LXDE distro like:

http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1705

it was just released not long ago and people are seeing the difference, try it.

i hope it works the way you want it.

and try chromium browser it starts up very fast.

Rennonz said: Nope. Or perhaps I overlooked it. Is it possible to do it manually?

you'd hardly have overlooked it, it's next to impossible. you can go to system-administration-additional drivers. in ubuntu, so your distro shouldn't be too different. but from what i've seen in your scepcs, you don't seem to have a graphic gard listed, so i'd assume it's an onboard intel card, in which case no drivers should be required.

the fact that win7 is running faster with the same specs suggests either that there is a proprietary driver making it so or that something went wrong with the install.

Rennonz said:

Scrolling through images, the previews take 5 seconds to show up and so do the images themselves when clicked on. Programs take around the same time to boot up (Firefox included). Things just seem "slow". I have no idea how to tell you what "kernel" this is but regarding hardware, how about this?

CPUIntel® Atom™ N450 ProcessorMemoryDDR2, 2 x SO-DIMM, 1GB/2GBStorage2.5" SATA2 160GB/250GB 5400rpm HDDWireless Data NetworkWLAN 802.11 b/g@2.4GHz Bluetooth V2.1+EDR(Optional)

You dont have the fastest machine but I think that normally even on your specs Ubuntu would work without glitches. Another thing, did you update your system recently? At least on Ubuntu 10.10 there were some Kernel updates that helped me to solve some Firefox glitches like the scrolling. Maybe turn off desktop effects, it helps also. Chromium was also recommended by others, not a bad idea for a netbook. Maybe try the netbook edition of 10.10 or try the LTS version 10.04, it has a longer life cycle and tends to be a bit more usable, also it has a netbook edition. If nothing helps it would be better to try another spin, like said before, Xubuntu/Lubuntu or even another distro. If you go for another distro try PCLinuxOS, I recommend it warmly on your hardware, they have also a bunch of spins.

Edit: If you want to know which Kernel you use now with your Ubuntu install, just paste in the terminal this command: uname -a

At times on certain hardware Ubuntu can be pretty slow. At least GUI wise.. I never have any problems getting video encodings done quickly. This percieved sluggishness is a real problem though.

Ubuntu on 1gb of RAM seems like it crawls with a few things running. Not to mention video card weirdness. My suggestion to you is to slowly rule out causes. I will give an example of my results for each one:

Video Card: (for 2d) Install gtkperf and run the benchmark. Does it score between 5-15 seconds? If so, probably not video card making it feel slow. My Gtkperf on 100 had a Total time: 29.60. This means I have some 2d drawing issues. This is both because I am running mutter (which has strict animations) and a bug in drawing circles on my intel card. (GtkDrawingArea - Circles took up this much of the time: 21.92. Without it my result is only around 7 seconds. So I can rule out 2d drawing safely even though it has a corner case performance problem on my laptop.

Video Card: (for 3d) Can you run Compiz smoothly? Use the benchmark plugin (might have to install extra plugins and compiz config to access it). If you get a solid 60fps or more you have decent 3d acceleration. Compiz and mutter perform solidly on my machine, as well as various 3d games. So I can rule this issue out.

RAM: Run free -m. Look at the line that says buffers/cache, do you have a large amount of ram free? Look at the line that says swap: Is the swap usage 0? If so, it is probably not memory making it slow. ``` -/+ buffers/cache: 773 2215 Swap: 3336 0 3336

I have well over 2gb of ram free and am using 0 of my swap. Ram is not the issue.
[/QUOTE]

CPU: Run top, and look along the top for an entry that shows the idle cpu (example: 92.8%id). Is your cpu over 70% idle most of the time when not doing anything? If so, then its not a cpu issue.
[QUOTE="My Result"]My cpu is over 90% idle while I am typing this post.[/QUOTE]

Disk: Run the READ ONLY benchmark in Gnome Disk Utility. Do you get higher than 50mb per second? Is so it is probably not a disk problem. Though on a 5400rpm disk, things can seem slow. Do programs take a while to start? And the big one, flash based devices REALLY choke on write speed. So when Linux reaches the write-back point when there is a lot of IO things might lock up for a while.
[QUOTE="My Result"]My disk is fast (for a 5400rpm) and programs open quickly.[/QUOTE]

Things along that line can tell us more about the problem.  "Windows is faster" only says to me that Windows is more responsive at launching programs. Which from my experience, it usually is. Probably due to different kinds of preloading and library link strategies. I think Linux uses cache better for programs that are already running. A good way to test this is: Start Firefox, it may take up to 10 seconds to start. Close and start it again, it should be near instantanious. If not, then you are probably low on memory and may need a lighter environment like XFCE or LXDE.

I have an AcerOne (N270) and a Samsung NF210 (N550), both run fine with Ubuntu 10.04 . You have a N450, so it should be OK . Opening an Office file can be slow, beside that Ubuntu should kick Win a* anytime. I even got rid of that useless W7 Starter that is shipped with the Samsung. I could not stand the nagging solicitation of Norton.

I saw a lot of good advice on here. If part of your hard drive is bad and that portion also happens to be where Ubuntu is installed then it can slow down considerably by being forced to re-read areas multiple times before returning data from that sector. You could run SpinRite on the drive to figure that out (DOS-based and commercial, however there is nothing better or even comparable).

I don't know about your Ubuntu variant, but to install proprietary video drivers (if there are any and if you do have integrated Intel graphics then there isn't anything) click System --> Administration --> Hardware Drivers. If it shows any drivers you can activate then do so.

If you want to know what graphics card you have run windows, press Windows + R, type devmgmt.msc, and expand the display adapters tree. What does it say you have for a display adapter?

Also try: System --> Preferences --> Appearance, Visual Effects = None

Your slow experience may be caused by generic drivers. Linux doesn't always have well optimized drivers (in fairness nor does Windows), but that could be the difference.

Good luck, Christian Blackburn

uRock said:

Try pure Ubuntu. It is the best!

I agree. If you can afford it, get an ssd. My netbook flies now. Plus, you'll get better battery life, and helps keep things cooler.

This thread has become the old cliche...

How To Not Get Good Linux Help:

"Hey guys, could you help me with X?"

"RTFM"

How To Get Good Linux Help:

"Hey guys, why does linux suck at X?"

[many paragraphs and essays of phenomenal advice follows]

I still half-think its a troll.:P

jtarin said: I still half-think its a troll.:P

It would not be the first one.

He is right though. At times Ubuntu can be annoyingly slow.

Linux has always felt less responsive to me (gnome and kde) than windows 7 on my laptop (2ghz core 2 duo, 4gb ram 512mb hd2600). KDE in particular is horrific, but I think its due to the ati drivers.

jtarin said: I still half-think its a troll.:P

Haha, I'm not a troll ([SIZE="1"]here[/SIZE]). Just new to this strange new world of Linux. Excuse any seemingly ignorant questions or statements by me.

But the people here were right, it was wrong of me to say "*Ubuntu* is slow for me" when I was using a splinter of Ubuntu itself. I've since reinstalled Ubuntu and it is working very well with the exception of the microphone (which doesn't work at all on this Asus eeePC 1001PX, but it was to be expected) and the webcam is painfully slow (contrary to how well it functioned at the same resolution on Windows 7).

Rennonz said: Haha, I'm not a troll ([SIZE="1"]here[/SIZE]). Just new to this strange new world of Linux. Excuse any seemingly ignorant questions or statements by me.

But the people here were right, it was wrong of me to say "*Ubuntu* is slow for me" when I was using a splinter of Ubuntu itself. I've since reinstalled Ubuntu and it is working very well with the exception of the microphone (which doesn't work at all on this Asus eeePC 1001PX, but it was to be expected) and the webcam is painfully slow (contrary to how well it functioned at the same resolution on Windows 7). If hardware manufacturers would start supporting Linux better there wouldn't be this problem.I learned early not to take hardware for granted when running Linux. Throwing Linux on any old computer is asking for problems.....not as much as it used to be though.....but a little research will save you a lot of time and headaches. Just think if MS had to write a driver for everything in existence.......like Linux developers do.(with some small exceptions)