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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu's Unity/Compiz Gets Even Slower
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by bachinchi View PostAnd 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?
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; 04 September 2012, 10:06 PM.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by garegin View Posti 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
-
Originally posted by garegin View Posti 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
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
-
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; 05 September 2012, 05:43 AM.
Comment
-
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 PostThe 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
-
Originally posted by bartek View PostSome 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
Its not bad, but its not the nr1 alternative.
I would rather use cinemon before I consider xfce.
Comment
Comment