Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 8.04.4 LTS, 12.04 LTS, 12.10 On An Old Laptop

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

  • Ubuntu 8.04.4 LTS, 12.04 LTS, 12.10 On An Old Laptop

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 8.04.4 LTS, 12.04 LTS, 12.10 On An Old Laptop

    Last week I shared how the open-source R500 driver can compete with the legacy Catalyst Linux driver on an old Intel laptop with ATI graphics, but how has the performance for other areas of the system changed with the latest Ubuntu Linux code? In this article are benchmarks from other areas of this Core Duo laptop when running Ubuntu 8.04.4 LTS, Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and then a recent development snapshot of Ubuntu 12.10.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17463

  • #2
    Charts

    How come you back to using PNG again from using SVG for the charts?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      How come you back to using PNG again from using SVG for the charts?
      I'm still seeing SVG charts. Maybe you use Opera?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AlbertP View Post
        I'm still seeing SVG charts. Maybe you use Opera?
        Oh, now when I looked again they're actually SVG.
        Don't know what happened.

        Comment


        • #5
          While Windows boys recommend to use older Windowses on older hardware it's seems it's exactly opposite in Linux. It's becoming faster and faster. Even if Unity or Gnome Shell slows your computer down it's better to switch to other DE rather than older distribution.

          Comment


          • #6
            heh - seems like I need to recompile my system (gentoo) and kernel with gcc 4.7 then

            nice improvements


            thanks for the benchmarks Michael !

            now I can consider installing newer Ubuntu releases on our older laptop

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              While Windows boys recommend to use older Windowses on older hardware it's seems it's exactly opposite in Linux. It's becoming faster and faster. Even if Unity or Gnome Shell slows your computer down it's better to switch to other DE rather than older distribution.
              Some recommended to use XP when Vista was released.
              But then after some service packs Vista started to suck less.
              Now most people moved to Windows 7 which is decent (though, I much prefer Linux).
              Now Windows 8 is coming, and I don't like it, but who knows perhaps after some service packs...

              Comment


              • #8
                I see no point in buying Windows 7 or 8 when XP does all of the FEW things I use Windows for (and I already own it). I'll just continue to run XP in a Virtual Machine under Linux Mint.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by enfield View Post
                  I see no point in buying Windows 7 or 8 when XP does all of the FEW things I use Windows for (and I already own it). I'll just continue to run XP in a Virtual Machine under Linux Mint.
                  The font rendering in Windows XP is absolutely horrible. It makes my eyes bleed.
                  Windows 7 is a much more system with User Account Control (UAC), Universal Audio Architecture (UAA), Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM), etc. Better support for 64-bit, etc.
                  New games might require DirectX 10 and 11.

                  Windows XP is a old, oudated, legacy system. It was alright back then, but these days its a decade old, its so legacy.
                  Windows 7 is a much nicer system.
                  Windows 8 have some new nice stuff too, such as Windows Live USB, WDDM 2, etc. But Metro on the desktop sucks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by enfield View Post
                    I see no point in buying Windows 7 or 8 when XP does all of the FEW things I use Windows for (and I already own it). I'll just continue to run XP in a Virtual Machine under Linux Mint.
                    I used to think the same but I realized that XP does have some significant performance flaws that are taken care of in future OSes. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for MS to fix those performance issues but unfortunately at this point they deliberately don't fix them because it helps MS supply reasons to stop using XP. I'm sure its the same thing why MS is excluding USB 3.0 support out-of-the-box for win7 when it would be an effortless service pack fix.

                    The only reason I use windows 7 over XP is because it does prove to perform better, it supports DX11, and has symlinks. I've gotten DX10 to work in XP before, but I want 11. The only reason I want win8 over win7 is because it seems to be cleaned up a lot more - you don't get half the crap that you never plan to run. If I can get rid of that disaster of an interface they call Metro, I might pirate win8.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                      The only reason I use windows 7 over XP is because it .... has symlinks.
                      Thanks for that.... I did not know that Vista/7 supported proper symlinks for files/directories on NTFS using the mklink command.

                      I may be re-structuring part of my OS and Data partitions to better take advantage of my SSD as a result of this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                        If I can get rid of that disaster of an interface they call Metro, I might pirate win8.
                        Windows is a commercially sold software.
                        If you do not want to pay for it, then don't use it.
                        Either buy and use Windows or don't buy Windows and use Linux instead.
                        But if you want to use it, you should pay for it.


                        Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
                        Thanks for that.... I did not know that Vista/7 supported proper symlinks for files/directories on NTFS using the mklink command.
                        I may be re-structuring part of my OS and Data partitions to better take advantage of my SSD as a result of this.
                        How so?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                          Windows is a commercially sold software.
                          If you do not want to pay for it, then don't use it.
                          Either buy and use Windows or don't buy Windows and use Linux instead.
                          But if you want to use it, you should pay for it.
                          Oh gee I'm sorry Captain Ethical, I didn't realize that I had such a diabolical plan. Now MS will crumble and fall because I didn't pay for their mediocre product and it's all my fault!

                          Seriously, telling someone what to do that is based on your opinion is just as distasteful as piracy itself. I pay for games (and I pay more than $10 for the humble bundles), most of the music I get is legally free, I'll pay for a movie once in a while, but I rarely download those either. Generally, if there's something I want and can't pay for it, I wait so I can get it UNLESS the product was made specifically for profit and nothing more, where I don't care if the company gets a loss. I pirate Windows because MS doesn't need or deserve the money. They pull all sorts of stupid tricks to give you reasons to pay full price for a minimal upgrade that may do something you don't like. I'd give examples but I'd be going on for pages about that. Besides, the performance thing discussed earlier in this thread was an example. The only thing I use Windows for at this point is watching movies (because ALSA is a pain in the ass when it comes to surround sound) and playing games, and I don't do those very often; I've gone almost entire months not doing either. To me, it makes no sense to pay for something I don't use much and find worse than Linux in almost every way I can think of.


                          How so?
                          I'm guessing by putting files related to booting and other frequently-accessed files in the SSD, he'll get more performance while not using up a ton of the SSD's limited space on just Windows itself. Installing Windows on a SSD is sorta a waste of all that space when many/most of those bloated files might not ever be accessed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                            Oh gee I'm sorry Captain Ethical, I didn't realize that I had such a diabolical plan. Now MS will crumble and fall because I didn't pay for their mediocre product and it's all my fault!

                            Seriously, telling someone what to do that is based on your opinion is just as distasteful as piracy itself. I pay for games (and I pay more than $10 for the humble bundles), most of the music I get is legally free, I'll pay for a movie once in a while, but I rarely download those either. Generally, if there's something I want and can't pay for it, I wait so I can get it UNLESS the product was made specifically for profit and nothing more, where I don't care if the company gets a loss. I pirate Windows because MS doesn't need or deserve the money. They pull all sorts of stupid tricks to give you reasons to pay full price for a minimal upgrade that may do something you don't like. I'd give examples but I'd be going on for pages about that. Besides, the performance thing discussed earlier in this thread was an example. The only thing I use Windows for at this point is watching movies (because ALSA is a pain in the ass when it comes to surround sound) and playing games, and I don't do those very often; I've gone almost entire months not doing either. To me, it makes no sense to pay for something I don't use much and find worse than Linux in almost every way I can think of.
                            If its so mediocre, then don't use it.
                            If you're dissatisfied with surround sound and media playback on Linux, then feel free to donate to ALSA, FFmpeg, GStreamer, PulseAudio, VLC, MPlayer, XMBC, etc. Maybe the situation will improve.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                              If its so mediocre, then don't use it.
                              If you're dissatisfied with surround sound and media playback on Linux, then feel free to donate to ALSA, FFmpeg, GStreamer, PulseAudio, VLC, MPlayer, XMBC, etc. Maybe the situation will improve.
                              As I said, I don't really use it. If the first thing I do when I run windows is a full-screen program that hides the entire OS then I don't really care about what makes it crappy. The only things I find windows significantly better at than linux is playing 3D commercial games and file sharing.

                              PulseAudio can set up surround sound just fine, but its still a little too heavy and unstable for my likes. ALSA is perfectly capable of surround sound but its how to do it that is the problem. Documentation for it seems to be outdated or hardware specific, and the only GUI for it doesn't work anymore.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X