Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Ubuntu getting slower?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 936 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 12 March 2009 - 11:35 PM

well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features

#22 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 12 March 2009 - 11:40 PM

well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features


Use punctuation. Also, try making sense.

#23 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 936 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 13 March 2009 - 01:33 AM

well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features


Use punctuation. Also, try making sense.


how so? by being a master of litarature and saying a few words that could mean many things if they were actually thought about such as; "why dont we eat babies?"

edit: if you add extra stuff to a program when it is compiled and eventually ran it will be bigger and take up more ram and hd space therefore it could be deduced that it will be will be slower as it is using more ram making you have less free ram to work with whicch could possibly slow down a computer. having more data used on an optical drive could cause the computer to take longer, in finding where you are putting, taking, modifiying, or running and application. if you are say pagefiling onto said optical drive it would slow it down if there was not a seperate drive for pagefiling. just beacuse it is a different partion does not mean it will not slow down, if it is infact on the same drive it will still be slowed down by the longer search time on other parts of the disk(s). if you make applications bigger and add more applications it will slow down.

Edited by dinscurge, 13 March 2009 - 01:43 AM.


#24 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 13 March 2009 - 02:37 AM

I'm trying really hard to understand what you're saying, but you don't make it easy. Please, use punctuation. Reading your posts is like reading one long, rambling run-on sentence. You know what you're trying to say, but unless you can form things like complete sentences and paragraphs, it's very difficult for anyone else to figure that out.

A program being larger or there being more programs won't slow down other programs. It doesn't matter if there are more files on the hard drive, you'll still have to seek just as much. Also, it doesn't matter if the programs in RAM are larger, as long as there's enough free RAM for the programs you're running. Though true, if there are more files in a directory, locating any one particular file will take longer, but that's not going to matter in the mp3 encoder case. Any difference in raw performance is going to be because of tweaks to the scheduler, the size and number of disk buffers, etc.

#25 etherknot

etherknot

    Will I break 10 posts?

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 10 February 2010 - 11:18 AM

This is pretty interesting. A number of benchmarks were performed on identical hardware and default software configurations of the last four Ubuntu releases. You might expect most of the benchmarks to stay the same, but that's not necessarily true.

http://www.phoronix....i..._2008&num=1


Perhaps in benchmark testing Ubuntu is getting slower, BUT...Im using fairly old hardware (amd64 sempron +3200, 1.2 gb and only the onboard video) and my ubuntu box is running 9.10 and it still uses less resources, boots faster, performs faster, and is more stable than my wifes brand new work laptop with a dual core intel centrino and 4gbs of ram.

I have the extra visual effects enabled, ciaro dock (no gxl), desktop drapes, and google gadgets running and still only use around 200mb of ram when idle, my wifes M$ crapper uses that just to get to look like a plain xp desktop, so while in benchmarks it may be getting slower, in my personal user experience with Ubuntu I have noticed no degradation in speed and in fact actually have seen a slight increase with boot load times using 9.10

Edited by etherknot, 10 February 2010 - 11:19 AM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!