Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Unity/Compiz Gets Even Slower

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

  • #31
    Maybe this thing can respond to the article :
    http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/09/n...rmance-in.html

    In facts, 12.10 is also alpha, so it's normal we can see regressions or problems since all modules aren't be updated with lastest desveloppement features.

    Comment


    • #32
      unity's biggest sin is it's aesthetics

      Canonical must have a blind UI designer

      " Derpaderp oh I know 2 colors that would go well together, ugly dark grey and ugly dark orange... oh and let me put that vomit inducing orange everywhere: scroll bars, folders, close window button... can not ever have too much orange that's what I always say"

      Gnome 3.4 3.6 looks and works a million times better than unity, but I guess they had to fork it and then rape it, all for what? a fkin dock? really? is a dock that doesn't even auto-hide decently that important?


      You go to gnome-look.org or pick any gnome theme at random and it will look 32929323 times better than unity

      I won't even talk about elementary luna and how they managed a hell fast, snappy and responsive desktop that works wonderfully and looks better than a million euros.

      go back to gnome you eeeeeeeddddddeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooootttttttttsssssss s

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
        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.
        See my earlier comment Redi, there was a post on Martin's blog about how with QT 5 and KDE 5, Kwin SHOULD be able to run as a window manager for any system that only has QT installed. So no KDE dependencies needed unless you (presumably) want some fancier stuff with it that IS kde-specific

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by bartek View Post

          Strange that nobody seems to care what a lead Comipiz developer has to say about the regressions ... D
          That does not help GL apps as they do damage the whole window, so unrelated to the benchmarks. (They should improve overall performance in non gaming scenarios though).

          Comment


          • #35
            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
            Exactly. People on this site love to bitch. They all think they know whats best and didn't even notice the main developer of compiz putting the ONLY reliable analysis of the regression on the entire site here in the forum. I wish these idiots would put thier code where thier fat parent's basement living asses are and help with the code, instead of complain. Since you'll act like such "experts" all the time.

            Also, your doing a great job SmSpillaz! Ignore these idiots, they aren't worth the oxygen they consume.

            Comment


            • #36
              It is really funny that intel onboard systems are used for gaming benchmarks. Of course hd 4000 is (at least on win) capable of running every game which would run on a budge nvidia/amd card as well but who really uses that as gamer? Compiz may not improve speed, nor do kde4 effects but the raw speed is what counts first. Single player games are often fine when 30 fps are always possible, multiplayer games run smoother with 60 fps. Newer engines are restricted to 60 fps when not running in benchmark m ode anyway. Also it is very unlikely that you get 45 fps with vsync enabled - most likely you get 30 fps then - well depends on the driver. On win there is a "smart" mode now which disables vsync when the framerate is too slow. As pts most likely sets vblank_mode=0 and the default user does not the experience will be completely different.

              Comment


              • #37
                I like to prove it all and I had to switch to XFCE

                After Ubuntu switched to Unity I tested Mint with Mate, and Cinnamon, even Gnome3 and Chakra an excellent KDE distro, but Sabayon XFCE and Xubuntu are my PRACTICAL choices.

                I have an AMD X3 at 3.2 Ghz and a integrated AMD 4250 HD, a cheap and old computer. Unity, Unity 2d and Gnome3 are very slow even KDE, XFCE, as Debian has recently choose as default desktop is the PRACTICAL CHOICE for old and "slow" computers.

                Perhaps the future Solus OS 2 with its new gnome 3 with Gnome 2 aspect and config options will be a good option, but since Unity and Gnome 3 arrived I have to tell people with old computers to install Xubuntu because Ubuntu is no longer as faster as was with Gnome 2 vs MS WOS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                  Exactly. People on this site love to bitch. They all think they know whats best and didn't even notice the main developer of compiz putting the ONLY reliable analysis of the regression on the entire site here in the forum. I wish these idiots would put thier code where thier fat parent's basement living asses are and help with the code, instead of complain. Since you'll act like such "experts" all the time.

                  Also, your doing a great job SmSpillaz! Ignore these idiots, they aren't worth the oxygen they consume.
                  You are not getting the point. The reason/state/future/amount of performance regression is almost irrelevant here. Those who dislike Unity hate it not because this particular regression, but because they dislike its design, features (or lack thereof) and usability. The performance regression is just the tip of the iceberg, an additional thing to complain about, but it is not the primary reason for Unity's unpopularity. Hence it is more or less also irrelevant what the developer or an analysis says about the performance, 'coz that is simply not the main problem in most people's eyes.

                  On a side note, yes people love to complain, but that is not specific to this forum. Dissatisfied people are always more likely to give voice to their oppinion than satisfied people. That is pretty normal, and probably alright, 'coz if a lot of people are "bitching", then something's probably wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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.
                    Is there another upstream Compiz other than the one you moved to Launchpad? Last time I checked, and Wikipedia confirms, everything on compiz.org is dead.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                      Is there another upstream Compiz other than the one you moved to Launchpad? Last time I checked, and Wikipedia confirms, everything on compiz.org is dead.
                      what does that have to do with Sam's comment on the regression in Unity, exactly?

                      You do realize that Unity and Compiz are not the same thing, right? (and that the code he is referring to is code likely in Unity.)

                      you do also realize that the compiz that ships (or is updated into Ubuntu/Unity) doesn't always correspond to upstream compiz development, right?

                      anyway, your comment is pretty daft, if you ask me (it doesn't even make sense).

                      Originally posted by ultimA View Post
                      You are not getting the point. The reason/state/future/amount of performance regression is almost irrelevant here. Those who dislike Unity hate it not because this particular regression, but because they dislike its design, features (or lack thereof) and usability. The performance regression is just the tip of the iceberg, an additional thing to complain about, but it is not the primary reason for Unity's unpopularity. Hence it is more or less also irrelevant what the developer or an analysis says about the performance, 'coz that is simply not the main problem in most people's eyes.
                      how is it irrelevant (?) when the article is about just that, a regression in performance... it's essentially the most relevant part of the article. I would say you trying to get into some debate of it's design, features, usability, unpopularity, etc is actually what is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. And as far as Sam's comment - it is VERY relevant being how this article IS about a regression in performance, and it makes sense that he would point out, why the regression is there (apparently not in your mind, though). The reality is - this code hasn't been released yet because it's not ready at this point. Regressions are common in software that is in the middle of development, alpha, beta, etc ...so i think the developer's input is a good thing and very relevant to the discussion at hand. Far more relevant than your comment about this stuff.
                      Last edited by ninez; 09-05-2012, 07:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                        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.
                        Look, I am not part of the Gnome Shell bashing crowd, but your analysis here seems to be clouded by your own judgements rather than any objective reality. Considering that at the moment there is no separate Gnome Shell flavour of Ubuntu (that will change, but still...) I find it highly unlikely that most Ubuntu's user first choice after ditching Unity would be Gnome Shell. Both Xubuntu and Lubuntu are probably used far more frequently than people manually grabbing Gnome Shell packages.

                        And I debate the line that Xfce is less feature complete than Gnome Shell. Both have features targeting different areas - Thunar and xfdesktop are probably the largest sore spots for Xfce when it comes to feature completeness, but it does have an excellent power manager, a more stable and easily configurable panel than Gnome 2 did, a very configurable display compositor, and a superior settings layout. Gnome wins when it comes to the variety of default applications, superior user settings, and in some ways when it comes to out of the box appeal. But to sideline Xfce as you did there is unfair.
                        Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 09-05-2012, 07:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ninez View Post
                          how is it irrelevant (?) when the article is about just that, a regression in performance... it's essentially the most relevant part of the article. I would say you trying to get into some debate of it's design, features, usability, unpopularity, etc is actually what is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. And as far as Sam's comment - it is VERY relevant being how this article IS about a regression in performance, and it makes sense that he would point out, why the regression is there (apparently not in your mind, though). The reality is - this code hasn't been released yet because it's not ready at this point. Regressions are common in software that is in the middle of development, alpha, beta, etc ...so i think the developer's input is a good thing and very relevant to the discussion at hand. Far more relevant than your comment about this stuff.
                          You're talking about a different thing. The article was about the regression, of course, and it is good that the developer responded to that, for which we are thankful. Regressions are of course part of software development. My reply was meant for people who started bashing other people for voicing their dislike of Unity and argued that one of the dislikers didn't consider the analysis. I was just saying that for those who dislike Unity (which has way more causes than just performance reasons), the performance analysis doesn't make a difference.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                            Look, I am not part of the Gnome Shell bashing crowd, but your analysis here seems to be clouded by your own judgements rather than any objective reality. Considering that at the moment there is no separate Gnome Shell flavour of Ubuntu (that will change, but still...) I find it highly unlikely that most Ubuntu's user first choice after ditching Unity would be Gnome Shell. Both Xubuntu and Lubuntu are probably used far more frequently than people manually grabbing Gnome Shell packages.

                            And I debate the line that Xfce is less feature complete than Gnome Shell. Both have features targeting different areas - Thunar and xfdesktop are probably the largest sore spots for Xfce when it comes to feature completeness, but it does have an excellent power manager, a more stable and easily configurable panel than Gnome 2 did, a very configurable display compositor, and a superior settings layout. Gnome wins when it comes to the variety of default applications, superior user settings, and in some ways when it comes to out of the box appeal. But to sideline Xfce as you did there is unfair.
                            I did not want to insult people for using xfce, I just say that ->I<- would not want to use it, I tried it but it was way way from what I am used to in gnome. So if you think its maybe nearly as good as gnome2 was, I think that gnome-shell is significant improvement over gnome2, so I understand people who think that gnome-shell is worse than gnome2, which are many I guess for them that would be a hard critic when they would here that gnome-shell is way better than xfce. If you hate gnome-shell and loved gnome2 you maybe like xfce, but if you love gnome-shell way more than gnome2 you cannot like xfce.

                            Hope that clearified it a bit. I have nothing against xfce, if people like it be happy with it. But I know why Micheal talks about xfce, because he dont like gnome-shell, too. So I sniff a sideslap against gnome-shell not to mention it.

                            yes for ubuntu users its maybe a more likely thing to do to checkout xfce, but gnome is not some projekt with 5 guys or so... its THE Linux-desktop-system, its one of the 2 big, and from them its the bigger one (in userbase). Even xfce is partly gnome-powered, I mean gtk is mostly also a gnome-dev-project or am I wrong here? I know you can use gtk wihtout gnome-libs or something like that, but its a part of the gnome-projekt.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ultimA View Post
                              You're talking about a different thing. The article was about the regression, of course, and it is good that the developer responded to that, for which we are thankful. Regressions are of course part of software development. My reply was meant for people who started bashing other people for voicing their dislike of Unity and argued that one of the dislikers didn't consider the analysis. I was just saying that for those who dislike Unity (which has way more causes than just performance reasons), the performance analysis doesn't make a difference.
                              Bartek, clearly was saying that people just take any occasion that they can to bitch about Canonical and/or Unity, yet the article is about a regression, which Sam addressed - yet most commentors/dislikers just skipped over that, and continued to bitch - nowhere did i get the impression that bartek thought people should consider the regression/performance analysis as being a deal-maker (or breaker) as you are suggesting above. (in fact, i find that line of thinking to be a bit silly, at best). The closest he ever came to making any comment of that sort was to judge unity 6 when it is released - which is fair enough, but importantly - still not analogous to your interpretation of what he said. ~ likewise, i think the same is true of dh04000 statement.

                              I do not believe either of those 2 were trying to say people should be considering 'the performance analysis' over their opinions of UI design, features, etc... What i got out of both comments is that people just tend to bitch any chance they get and skim right past relevant information (to the article). ~ which is obviously very common place around here.

                              anyway, it really doesn't matter.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                                yes for ubuntu users its maybe a more likely thing to do to checkout xfce, but gnome is not some projekt with 5 guys or so... its THE Linux-desktop-system, its one of the 2 big, and from them its the bigger one (in userbase). Even xfce is partly gnome-powered, I mean gtk is mostly also a gnome-dev-project or am I wrong here? I know you can use gtk wihtout gnome-libs or something like that, but its a part of the gnome-projekt.
                                GTK stands for 'Gimp Toolkit' - it was not originally developed by Gnome nor was it a Gnome Project - it was developed to replace Motif as Gimp's toolkit.

                                lots of DEs/WMs use it and that doesn't make them gnome-powered, it makes them GTK+ powered. an example of a 'partly gnome-powered' DE - would be Unity or Elementary OS's DE or Cinnamon ~ those are examples of DEs that are powered by gnome, since they are all essentially gnome, just with different shells, modified/forked software and other slight (mostly superficial) modifications/alterations.
                                Last edited by ninez; 09-05-2012, 10:09 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X