Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Ubuntu's Unity/Compiz Gets Even Slower

  1. #21

    Default

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    351

    Default

    i 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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Bernardino, CA
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bachinchi View Post
    And 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?
    Yes, I read his response. He speculates that the difference in performance between the version of Kwin that was tested and the one tested the prior year is possibly due to some changed configuration settings; however, he never says Kwin is faster than Mutter. Unless you have benchmarks to show otherwise, I'd have to go by what is openly published and reproducible on Phoronix. Having said that, even if, you could somehow tweak and re-configure Kwin to be faster, currently, out-of-the box performance, as you readily admit, is much slower than Mutter. This slower experience is what the majority of users are going to be exposed to.

    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; 09-04-2012 at 10:06 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    781

    Default

    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).

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    i 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
    The problem is, that KWin needs all kinds of KDE dependencies (As far as I know) and since Unity is GTK based that will give A LOT of unneeded dependencies.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    599

    Default



    ...and now you know why VALVE suddenly pushed it's Linux effort to February...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    i 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
    I agree with this, really there are areas where different approaches gives vastly different benefits and in such cases I see no problem with different solutions, but a compositior???

    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?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    777

    Default 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; 09-05-2012 at 05:43 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    33

    Default 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 ...

    Quote Originally Posted by SmSpillaz View Post
    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.
    Please judge Unity 6 when the final release arrives in October

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartek View Post
    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 ...



    Please judge Unity 6 when the final release arrives in October
    But Michael puts fire into this discussion, because he says something about how unity is slower and that the alternative is xfce or something... whats wrong about gnome-shell as THE alternative. I mean performace-fetishists will maybe use that or better openbox or something like that. But the normal ubuntu-user will most likely use gnome-shell if unity is not good, but most likely he just uses unity because its default... so the first alternative would be gnome-shell not xfce, xfce is not that featurecomplete than a gnome-shell, if it where most people would used xfce in the time where gnome2 was out... that was not the case...

    Its not bad, but its not the nr1 alternative.

    I would rather use cinemon before I consider xfce.

Posting Permissions

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