Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Unity/Compiz Gets Even Slower

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This crap is the only reason I don't use unity. I really like unity's interface, but goddamn is unity/compiz slow as hell on my intel ironlake card. Just bringing up the dash over a video playing will bring things to a crawl.

    Gnome-shell has just as much eye candy and runs fast as hell on this card, and is also FAR less buggy. I get random crashes and bad performance with unity/compiz, while gnome-shell/mutter is always smooth and stable. I really wish Canonical had stuck with mutter for unity instead of making the poor decision to scrap it for compiz. Say what you want about gnome-shell but they have done a great job giving an absolutely smooth composited desktop. No graphical glitches, no tearing, stable, and animations are always smooth, good all around performance, which is all I really want from a 3d desktop.

    Kwin also runs great on this card since kde 4.8, compiz is the only one that runs so poorly.
    Last edited by bwat47; 09-04-2012, 05:45 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
      This crap is the only reason I don't use unity. I really like unity's interface, but goddamn is unity/compiz slow as hell on my intel ironlake card. Just bringing up the dash over a video playing will bring things to a crawl.

      Gnome-shell has just as much eye candy and runs fast as hell on this card, and is also FAR less buggy. I get random crashes and bad performance with unity/compiz, while gnome-shell/mutter is always smooth and stable. I really wish Canonical had stuck with mutter for unity instead of making the poor decision to scrap it for compiz. Say what you want about gnome-shell but they have done a great job giving an absolutely smooth composited desktop. No graphical glitches, no tearing, stable, and animations are always smooth, good all around performance, which is all I really want from a 3d desktop.

      Kwin also runs great on this card since kde 4.8, compiz is the only one that runs so poorly.
      compiz ran great with gnome-panel. throw unity on there and it's a turd.

      granted compiz has undergone significant rework since the gnome-panel days.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gururise View Post
        Uh... did you even read Michael's latest test results comparing KDE(Kwin)/Gnome Shell(Mutter)/XFCE/Unity(Compiz)?

        Gnome Shell (Mutter) was faster than Kwin in almost every test, sometimes by a significant margin too! Sure Kwin is faster than Unity, but so is everything else... The conclusion was, that Gnome-Shell and XFCE were the best performing desktops across all gfx driver platforms.

        Also, implying that all the developers jumped in to support Kwin is quite misleading.. I seriously doubt KDE has more users/developers than Gnome or Unity.
        And did you read Martin's response? The performance difference is because of a changed default (unredirection of full screen windows).

        Yeah, I know. Most users will only ever use the defaults. And (currently) Kwin is out-of-the-box less performant that Mutter. I don't really know the reasoning of this change. Anyone have an idea?
        Last edited by bachinchi; 09-04-2012, 06:20 PM. Reason: typo

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
          In a way this kind of shows how important the community is to a project. By the large, no one ever jumped onto Unity (or Gnome 3) developer wise, users sure but not the developers that drive a project, and Compiz was all-but-officially abandoned when Gnome moved to Mutter. Because so few of the developers care about Compiz you run into a problem of "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow"-- Canonical can't provide enough eyes on their own, and apparently they cant get enough outside help either.

          Mutter is most likely in a similar boat (benchmarks, Michael?) and I can't help but look at Kwin and go "There's a project that's pushing forward with technology, there's a project developers care about." I follow Martin Graesslin's blog about once a week or so, and every time there's an announcement by him about some new feature and the feedback from the community is astounding. People CARE about Kwin. Whenever an announcement comes up for Unity/Compiz or Gnome/Mutter I only seem to hear "Performance regression incoming" or "meh, who uses it anyway?"

          (disclaimer, yes I use KDE (Kubuntu/Fedora KDE/Arch). I also used to run Gnome 2 + Compiz before Ubuntu jumped to Unity, Ive used Fedora Gnome 3, and I've run E17 and Openbox on Arch, so don't just jump at "Try a lighterweight one, they're even faster-- i have used them, Kwin is still my favorite.)

          Just my 2 cents.
          -Eric

          Mutter, at last check,was the best perfoming of the modern (excluding enlightenment's which I have no idea of the performance, though I expect it to be excellent).compositing WMs. Kwin was also very close to mutter's performance.
          Perhaps Phoronix will do a roundup soon.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by narciso View Post
            Some games, simply won't unredirect to fullscreen properly with compiz, and that causes a major performance hit.

            One of the best games on Linux, Trine 2, simply runs like crap with compiz.
            Try to not use fullscreen, but windowed, and set the game resolution to the screen's resolution. Not.sure if that will really help, but it works with some games.

            Comment


            • #21
              The regional updates code is currently not active while we figure out how to make it work with changes in upstream compiz. This is why the slowness exists at the moment.

              Comment


              • #22
                i believe that mutter compiz and kwin is just stupid duplication of effort. all of them are full-featured compositing WMs. there are some technical differences, but they don't outweight the lost developer energies

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bachinchi View Post
                  And did you read Martin's response? The performance difference is because of a changed default (unredirection of full screen windows).

                  Yeah, I know. Most users will only ever use the defaults. And (currently) Kwin is out-of-the-box less performant that Mutter. I don't really know the reasoning of this change. Anyone have an idea?
                  Yes, I read his response. He speculates that the difference in performance between the version of Kwin that was tested and the one tested the prior year is possibly due to some changed configuration settings; however, he never says Kwin is faster than Mutter. Unless you have benchmarks to show otherwise, I'd have to go by what is openly published and reproducible on Phoronix. Having said that, even if, you could somehow tweak and re-configure Kwin to be faster, currently, out-of-the box performance, as you readily admit, is much slower than Mutter. This slower experience is what the majority of users are going to be exposed to.

                  Michael's test results are what 99% of users would experience on Mutter vs Kwin... that being Mutter (Gnome Shell) is faster than Kwin (KDE) in most gaming tasks, and is almost comparable to XFCE in speed.
                  Last edited by gururise; 09-04-2012, 10:06 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The new paradigm, create a shittier product than the current one and then the next one better than the last one. End result - after a few years people will have an impression your stuff has become faster than ever when in fact it's not. Problem reaction solution. XP -> Vista-> win7, Gnome2 -> slow Unity -> great Unity (hopefully some time in the future).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by garegin View Post
                      i believe that mutter compiz and kwin is just stupid duplication of effort. all of them are full-featured compositing WMs. there are some technical differences, but they don't outweight the lost developer energies
                      The problem is, that KWin needs all kinds of KDE dependencies (As far as I know) and since Unity is GTK based that will give A LOT of unneeded dependencies.

                      Comment


                      • #26


                        ...and now you know why VALVE suddenly pushed it's Linux effort to February...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by garegin View Post
                          i believe that mutter compiz and kwin is just stupid duplication of effort. all of them are full-featured compositing WMs. there are some technical differences, but they don't outweight the lost developer energies
                          I agree with this, really there are areas where different approaches gives vastly different benefits and in such cases I see no problem with different solutions, but a compositior???

                          Can't Weston be the standard compositor for KDE,Gnome,XFCE,Unity etc? Is there a serious technical reason for fragmenting something so functionally simple?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I hate canonical for this shit

                            Why ok, first they created this mess, I have no problem with diversity, but when the most popular gnome-distribution switches to something different, a big junk of people will try that, and even worse because they are not very good at that, some people will say see linux sucks, some a bit less retarded than say, gnome sucks.

                            But thats the next thing. If they would at least clearly say, thats not gnome, thats something NON-gnomish that uses some gnome-dependencies it would be even better. Because now we read because unity sucks (not totaly but its not that fast and bug free than gnome-shell) that gnome sucks.

                            And because they set unity to default and not even give the option for a gnome-shell blend (at least that will change), most users will even if they make some bad experience give that thing chances over chances. maybe maybe they will install shortly gnome-shell, but they often than try it only a short time and give it only one change. and because you have to use it a while to understand the new conzepts they than hate that too.

                            Ubuntu is a big linux name damager. Because many people think that ubuntu = linux and linux-desktop = ubuntu-desktop (unity) so if they hate that. Ok you can say thats stupid but many people are like that.

                            Like in this thread were you could think here are more smart people, on site one someone said I switched away from gnome to xfce, he did not mean gnome-shell but unity. Technicaly he is maybe even right with that sentence. I somewhat would nearly wish that the gnome-devs would be somewhat like the mozilla guys. that you only could name something patches but only gnome-shell as gnome. not that extreme that the distries cannot patch it but unity is more like a antipatch and its bit

                            to the speed of gnome-shell at least with amd hardware and the opensource driver, the shell was not the bottlenegg at least till kernel 3.5, if you use gnome-shell with a older kernel, install such a kernel under ubuntu as example with the mainline kernels just download 3-4 deb files install it and reboot.

                            Especialy in chromium but also the desktop at whole render faster. the one thing thats not that fast at the moment is epiphany (version 3.4.1) but in the next gnome coming with ubuntu oneiric (alpha works not bad) there is also a webkit update for this browser and then he is faster too.

                            BTW:
                            unity lives more years than gnome-shell they had this ubuntu netbook edition some years before even a new version of gnome was announced, and even today they are not that fast or that stable than gnome-shell. they sould now say that they cant keep up with the work of gnome. yes the hud is funny but there should be no problem to port that to gnome-shell as example as a extention or something... and then ubuntu could preinstall that under their distribution.

                            But now because all linux-devs are arogant trolls like icasa or linus (even in this case they are not guilty ^^) they have to stick to their thing and now that their thing is always better, because its their thing.
                            Last edited by blackiwid; 09-05-2012, 05:43 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Stupid people

                              Some people use every opportunity they can get to yell at Unity or Canonical.
                              Michael post these test results to see how Unity evolves over time in alfa and beta quality.

                              Strange that nobody seems to care what a lead Comipiz developer has to say about the regressions ...

                              Originally posted by SmSpillaz View Post
                              The regional updates code is currently not active while we figure out how to make it work with changes in upstream compiz. This is why the slowness exists at the moment.
                              Please judge Unity 6 when the final release arrives in October

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bartek View Post
                                Some people use every opportunity they can get to yell at Unity or Canonical.
                                Michael post these test results to see how Unity evolves over time in alfa and beta quality.

                                Strange that nobody seems to care what a lead Comipiz developer has to say about the regressions ...



                                Please judge Unity 6 when the final release arrives in October
                                But Michael puts fire into this discussion, because he says something about how unity is slower and that the alternative is xfce or something... whats wrong about gnome-shell as THE alternative. I mean performace-fetishists will maybe use that or better openbox or something like that. But the normal ubuntu-user will most likely use gnome-shell if unity is not good, but most likely he just uses unity because its default... so the first alternative would be gnome-shell not xfce, xfce is not that featurecomplete than a gnome-shell, if it where most people would used xfce in the time where gnome2 was out... that was not the case...

                                Its not bad, but its not the nr1 alternative.

                                I would rather use cinemon before I consider xfce.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X