ubuntu vs. xp speed????

Discussion in 'Linux' started by poro, Dec 16, 2008.

  1. poro

    poro

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    hay.

    will UBUNTU run faster on my 110 whit 1,5 gb ram and 8gb hd, then the xp im using now ?
    i have tray all the twiks for the xp, and it still start up in 3 min. and is hoples slow.
    have to say im totaly newbe to linux (even im from finland)

    i just downloaded the new ubuntu, will i install it or not ??? only need speed for start and stop .

    the programs i have/need so use is VLC, SKYPE, and FIREFOX will it all work?

    thanks to all ...

    :shock:
     
    poro, Dec 16, 2008
    #1
  2. poro

    jango

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ubuntu+Netbook Remix.... :D is all you need
     
    jango, Dec 16, 2008
    #2
  3. poro

    Xinês

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    My 8GBSSD, 1,5GbRAM AA1 gets from cold boot to wifi connected within 1'8'' (1min08sec) and shuts power within 22sec, running Ubuntu Intrepid (Gnome desktop) with regular tweaks plus the ultra nice Sickboy's version kernel. Never tried Windows on AA1 and don't intend to. Notice, some adicional tweaks can leave you even faster, but I didn't spent more time as it is ok like it is.

    Yes, all those programs work, but you have others working just fine also, some already installed with Ubuntu.
     
    Xinês, Dec 17, 2008
    #3
  4. poro

    Cubd

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I was duel booting XP and Ubuntu on my aspire one for a while (8GB for 2 OS's is stretching it though). At first, I couldn't speed up XP for the life of me. It would always "hang" for close to 1 min about 30 seconds after I had logged in and everything had loaded. Other than that, it was ok, but any time anything had to be written to the SSD, it become terribly slow, even firefox chugged with 0MB used for cache.

    Once I discovered EWF, however, XP became blazing fast. If you config your XP to use an EWF, it will be faster than Ubuntu. That being said, I tried to install windows updates while EWF was enabled and ended up breaking my heavily tweaked XP install. So just remember, if you do decide to go with XP, you can make it as fast as your desktop for everyday tasks, but when you want to install something, it's best that you disable it until after you've installed it.

    Oh, and in case you don't know what EWF is, it stands for Enhanced Write Filter and basically makes your copy of XP act like it's running off a CD. All of your instructions are put into a "stack" and you can config it so that the changes made during your session are executed at shutdown. It will make your shutdown a bit longer but if you really want XP, EWF is the only way to make it really usable.

    As of right now, I've just got Ubuntu installed, I may install tinyXP at some point and give EWF another go, but Ubuntu seems good enough for now, even though it did cut off ~30 min of battery life.
     
    Cubd, Dec 18, 2008
    #4
  5. poro

    twright

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my experience Linux is always considerably faster than XP (and don't even get be started on vista...); as fast as most default Linux installs are you can get even faster using something lightweight such as crunchbang or even DSL (these are among the fastest OSs out there, way better than a cut down XP version).
    I recommend you start with something easy like Ubuntu then you can really see how functional, beautiful and fast Linux can be :D
     
    twright, Dec 18, 2008
    #5
  6. poro

    Kamel

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite honestly, the fastest usable and well working OS for the AA1 (especially SSD edition) is by far the OS that comes on it, linpus lite. It is designed for the AA1 from the ground up, has seemless hardware support, and boots up in ridiculously quick times. It also uses xfce, which is one of the fastest and most light weight desktop managers, and that makes all the difference in the world when it comes to responsiveness of a machine.

    Also, I highly recommend against using EWF, as it doesn't truly speed your computer up, it just does hacky unsupported tricks to make your PC run off of a ramdisk. The same thing could be done in linux, using a live style distribution, but why would you want to? It causes an ocean of problems, some already mentioned, most not. I appreciate Cubd's input, but to present it as a true desktop for standard pc use is a little bit far fetched. Maybe for experienced users who don't mind the risk and can accept data loss, but even then it doesn't make sense that you would limit your resources such as ram in order to speed it up. Get a linux OS, like linpus, that allows you to have a nice fast PC that doesn't limit your resources or put you at high risk of data loss.
     
    Kamel, Dec 20, 2008
    #6
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.