Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: A Five-Way Linux Distribution Comparison In 2010

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gedgon View Post
    Hardware C2D 4500@2.2GHz, 2GiB RAM, Nvidia GF 275
    Ubuntu: Compiz turned off, Nvidia drivers v 256.35
    Arch: DE:KDE 4.4.5, WM:Openbox, stock kernel with minor patches for low latency desktop. Everything else 100% stock.

    Tests where Arch supposed to sucks.








    And sneak peek @ Windows vs Linux games performance
    Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.
    They did do a follow up to it. It is a shame though that they didn't run every test again without compositing. Windows 7 wins out there because it automatically disables compositing.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    It doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Seems like they're designed differently. Why not do a benchmark of Lubuntu v.s. Arch v.s. Debian Squeeze (or sidux) instead? I'd add Fedora 13 and Windows 7 for kicks for a real interesting comparison! I'd like to see such a benchmark test!

    Anyone else?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,621

    Default

    Basically no benchmark accross distros is fair. You never know how many extra depends have been installed when you do compile benchmarks. Those change the compile speed when they are optional. Also runtime benchmarks mainly show gcc differences. When you compare precompiled binaries for games then you test the gfx drivers if they are not 100% the same. I definitely would not chose the distro depending on a 3rd party benchmark. I know when i change for example the kernel it can be faster in some cases (bfs seems to improve speed only on cpus without ht) or when hardware is replaced then you can compare the difference on the SAME system. Even when it would be possible to gain 10% speed with one distro that would not change much - there are differnet issues to consider like the quality of support.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxforall View Post
    And yet in benchmakrs, Arch never ever manages to surpass this bloated crappy distro called Ubuntu.
    Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
    And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.


    Quote Originally Posted by linuxforall View Post
    Btw, all those who call Ubuntu bloated take heed, its meant to work outta box, no configure this, compile that but then if you are anal, be my guest as it allows all that as well. Also there are countless ways to install lighter version of Ubuntu as well as lxde versions that can go toe to toe with these so called anal favorite distros.
    Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fanATic View Post
    Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
    And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.

    So it does in Ubuntu, no lags here. What it has become today is a viable alternative for those who would like to try out something apart from Windows, other Linux distros with few exceptions can't even hold a candle to that.

    Imagine a Windows user coming into Arch or Gentoo, bye bye Linux forever.




    Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

    Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

    And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxforall View Post
    Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

    And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.
    Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.

    Imagine a Windows user coming into Arch or Gentoo, bye bye Linux forever.
    Imagine a Windows user coming into Debian, Slackware and Red Hat in 1997, bye bye Linux forever...wait, GNU/Linux is still alive?

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fanATic View Post
    Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.


    Imagine a Windows user coming into Debian, Slackware and Red Hat in 1997, bye bye Linux forever...wait, GNU/Linux is still alive?
    GNU/Linux is alive and in news because of distros like Ubuntu, like it or not.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxforall View Post
    GNU/Linux is alive and in news because of distros like Ubuntu, like it or not.
    Nope. Ubuntu is overhyped distro and nothing special, without Debian there is no Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be discontinued, but Debian will be still alive and kicking, with or without Windows switchers.
    But overall, it's not so bad, with Ubuntu buzzwording, GNU/Linux got more publicity but it's bad if average Joe from this hype start to think Ubuntu==GNU/Linux.

    First official Tutuntu came in 2004 and long time ago there was user friendly distro by name Mandrake. Debian got very easy gui and ncurses install, just like Slack and Red Hat, so there is nothing special in Debian based sid leeching distro.
    It is more important for GNU/Linux in developing and improving GNOME, Xfce, KDE and Linux than yet another Debian based distro.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fanATic View Post
    Nope. Ubuntu is overhyped distro and nothing special, without Debian there is no Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be discontinued, but Debian will be still alive and kicking, with or without Windows switchers.
    But overall, it's not so bad, with Ubuntu buzzwording, GNU/Linux got more publicity but it's bad if average Joe from this hype start to think Ubuntu==GNU/Linux.

    First official Tutuntu came in 2004 and long time ago there was user friendly distro by name Mandrake. Debian got very easy gui and ncurses install, just like Slack and Red Hat, so there is nothing special in Debian based sid leeching distro.
    It is more important for GNU/Linux in developing and improving GNOME, Xfce, KDE and Linux than yet another Debian based distro.
    You are a typical Ubuntu hater, lets put it this way, Debian has been around for long, its share of users was less than distros like SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva and Kanotix. Ubuntu is not overhyped, its the most popular as it manages to bridge the gap for those coming into linux for the first time without scaring them away forever. It also does mighty fine in the bling factor as well as ease of use for those who are not used to command line and configuration. Debian is now alive because of Ubuntu, people tend to overlook how subtle but effective under the hood changes are bought by Ubuntu dev team to make Debian look what it is today, upstart is now used by Fedora which is an acknowledgement of Canonical's work. Its unfortunate though that average Joe associates Ubuntu with Linux but lets put it this way, I am for anything that makes Linux visible so if Ubuntu is doing that currently, so be it. Earlier Linux was relegated to geek and nerd dungeons and now you find Sheldon from Big Bang using Ubuntu, all the more better for Linux in longer run. People who would never ever show interest in Linux or its derivatives now come and ask me about Ubuntu, for me thats victory of Linux, I don't care how its achieved, its all for good, this will also bring out other distros on similar lines as Ubuntu.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •