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

[phoronix]

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

[uid313]

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

[AlbertP]

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

I'm still seeing SVG charts. Maybe you use Opera?

[uid313]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kernelOfTruth]

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

[uid313]

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...

[enfield]

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.

[uid313]

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.

[schmidtbag]

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.