Go Back   Cyber Tech Help Support Forums > Operating Systems > Linux

Notices

Reply
 
Topic Tools
  #1  
Old May 6th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Total Noob Total Noob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 566
Sluggish Ubuntu 10.4

Could I have overloaded my Aptiva with 833 MHz when I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.4?

It seems very sluggish now, particularly on launching apps and booting. When offered the upgrade, there weren't any disclaimers or suggestions about regarding the kinds of equipment that would work well with the upgrade, otherwise I might not have taken it.

I also did not notice any sluggishness when I upgraded my laptop, though as noted WINE is not as good as before.
Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old May 7th, 2010, 10:01 PM
kage's Avatar
kage kage is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
O/S: Linux
Posts: 1,644
How much memory does this computer have?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 8th, 2010, 06:22 AM
craisin craisin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
O/S: Linux
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 1,095
I think your specs are too low
And to me its seems too easy to run Ubuntu inside XP and I dont need to run wine as I have windows to run windows programs
There are heaps of people having problems with wine Google it and see
I had a Epox with a 500mhz chip clocked to 530mhz and with 768mb of ram and 8.04 it ran faster than my Dell 2.4ghz and a gig of ram
But in an attempt to run it faster I flashed the bios and it died
My lowest spec machine on ubuntu is 2ghz cpu and I thought it was too small to take to 10.04 it currently runs 9.04
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 9th, 2010, 01:26 PM
kage's Avatar
kage kage is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
O/S: Linux
Posts: 1,644
I have one of the original Asus EEE 701 netbooks, which is equipped with a 900mhz celeron processor, scaled to 600mhz. It can run Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04 with compiz effects very well, but it also has 2GB of DDR2 ram, which significantly improves performance.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 11th, 2010, 06:17 PM
Total Noob Total Noob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by craisin View Post
I think your specs are too low
833 I think is Pentium 3, and I think I have 512 RAM, but I'm not really sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craisin View Post
And to me its seems too easy to run Ubuntu inside XP and I dont need to run wine as I have windows to run windows programs
I wouldn't know how to arrange that, plus isn't the point to be current without Windows?

From what is said here, Canonical should have released a very explicit disclaimer telling people that 10.4 is not going to work too well with old equipment. If it is mentioned on its website, then it is hard to find.

Plus, I haven't observed any breakthrough or really new thing to go with it to make it a choice over the older versions. The packaged apps, particularly Open Office, remain behind commercial. I also don't understand the left side "X" to terminate an app. What was the point of that, except to say we're not Windows?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 12th, 2010, 02:16 AM
NoGeeksPC NoGeeksPC is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
O/S: Linux
Location: Oklahoma City, OK. USA
Posts: 19
"Canonical should have released a very explicit disclaimer telling people that 10.4 is not going to work too well with old equipment. If it is mentioned on its website, then it is hard to find."

Total Noob,

Upgrade your computer. It's not their fault your computer is is severely out of date.

It's impossible for developers to make everyone happy, and Lucid is much like a sleek and powerful Jaguar (V12)... and your trying to push it down the street with a little red wagon... of course it wont work.

I don't mean to be a smart arse, but would you try to run Windows 7 on that toaster? Even though XP worked fine?

Sometimes it just needs to be said: Upgrade your hardware. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 12th, 2010, 02:26 AM
NoGeeksPC NoGeeksPC is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
O/S: Linux
Location: Oklahoma City, OK. USA
Posts: 19
Check out this forum for Linux distros that work well on older hardware:

http://www.cybertechhelp.com/forums/...d.php?t=208444

I like Puppy Linux, and it has absolutely the* best hardware detection I have seen in any distro... wonderful for data recovery and odd/old hardware.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 12th, 2010, 02:33 AM
kage's Avatar
kage kage is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
O/S: Linux
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Noob View Post
From what is said here, Canonical should have released a very explicit disclaimer telling people that 10.4 is not going to work too well with old equipment. If it is mentioned on its website, then it is hard to find.
The Intel Pentium 3 processor was produced between 1999 and 2003. Canonical should not be required to release an 'explicit disclaimer' stating that they do not support a processor that is nearly seven years old. They do have a minimum system requirements page that should be consulted before upgrading to a major new release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Noob View Post
Plus, I haven't observed any breakthrough or really new thing to go with it to make it a choice over the older versions. The packaged apps, particularly Open Office, remain behind commercial. I also don't understand the left side "X" to terminate an app. What was the point of that, except to say we're not Windows?
Most of the new features in 10.04 are improved hardware support and slightly newer software. 10.04 is not drastically different from 9.10, and it shouldn't be. There was only six months between 9.10 and 10.04. One thing you should note, however, is that 10.04 is an LTS (long term support) release. The last LTS release was 8.04. If you compare 10.04 to 8.04, then you will see quite a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 12th, 2010, 02:41 AM
NoGeeksPC NoGeeksPC is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
O/S: Linux
Location: Oklahoma City, OK. USA
Posts: 19
The difference to me, a former Windows user, is night and day. It wasn't until 9.10 that I started to use Linux...formatted my Windows partition, installed Ubuntu, and haven't looked back since.

Linux has come such a long way, even just over the last couple of years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 12th, 2010, 09:22 AM
craisin craisin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
O/S: Linux
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Noob View Post
833 I think is Pentium 3, and I think I have 512 RAM, but I'm not really sure.



I wouldn't know how to arrange that, plus isn't the point to be current without Windows?

From what is said here, Canonical should have released a very explicit disclaimer telling people that 10.4 is not going to work too well with old equipment. If it is mentioned on its website, then it is hard to find.

Plus, I haven't observed any breakthrough or really new thing to go with it to make it a choice over the older versions. The packaged apps, particularly Open Office, remain behind commercial. I also don't understand the left side "X" to terminate an app. What was the point of that, except to say we're not Windows?
As somebody mentioned heaps of Ram helps my highest spec machine has 2.5 gigs of ram I would like 4gigs but it cost money
I have 3 machines with 1gig of ram each and one with 512mb
It easy to guess what slowest but it has its uses and has helped me get the others up and running
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 12th, 2010, 09:18 PM
Total Noob Total Noob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 566
Quote:

The Recommended Minimum System Requirements should allow you to run an installation of Ubuntu well. While you can usually run Ubuntu on hardware of lower (and sometimes much lower) specification, performance will necessarily suffer. Most users (especially those new to Ubuntu) risk frustration if they ignore these suggestions.

Ubuntu Desktop (GUI) Installation

* 1 GHz x86 processor
* 512 MiB of system memory (RAM)
Source: Kage cited the Ubuntu minimum system requirements page that should be consulted before upgrading to a major new release.

I don't have that much and I guess that's why I'm bogging down.

I think a supplier like Canonical has to provide all the specifics up front rather than let it be a non-reversible surprise later. it is really a trivial effort to warn people about problems the company already knows about.

I did the upgrade by way of an automated system update notification; the least that Canonical could have done was install a read.me or an automatic systems requirement check with the installer so I could determine what to do. They do say what the requirements are at distrowatch and on their site, but a Total Noob has to know to look for it, and I didn't, and all a Total Noob has to do to upgrade automatically is agree to install it and it does without further adieu, so the company lets Total Noobs make those mistakes unwarned.

As for older or lighter versions, those are all good ideas, but unsupported Linux with no upgrades and possibly no repository support is not that helpful, and kind of contrary to one of the stated points of Linux, to save old equipment from the scrap heap. I should probably buy new and upgrade, but the unit in question is already a backup and a toy to experiment with as it is, plus it does Last.fm and will make a power point if absolutely necessary (I won't pay for that software, I do it too rarely), so it still has a purpose that isn't worth buying a new computer over -- assuming it works.

Wasn't that one of the points of Linux?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 12th, 2010, 11:19 PM
renegade600's Avatar
renegade600 renegade600 is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
O/S: Linux
Location: Osceola, Ar
Posts: 26,635
you said you did the upgrade automatically, if this is really the case, then there is nobody to blame but youself. Your settings should be set so you can review all updates before the system installs those updates. If you chose not to review updates before installing then what can they do? It was your decision!!

Like with any software, you need to do your own research before installing anything to see if it meets your requirements, if there were problems with the distro/updates, etc...

one more thing, you completely misunderstood the point of linux.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Noob View Post
I think a supplier like Canonical has to provide all the specifics up front rather than let it be a non-reversible surprise later. it is really a trivial effort to warn people about problems the company already knows about.

I did the upgrade by way of an automated system update notification; the least that Canonical could have done was install a read.me or an automatic systems requirement check with the installer so I could determine what to do. They do say what the requirements are at distrowatch and on their site, but a Total Noob has to know to look for it, and I didn't, and all a Total Noob has to do to upgrade automatically is agree to install it and it does without further adieu, so the company lets Total Noobs make those mistakes unwarned.

As for older or lighter versions, those are all good ideas, but unsupported Linux with no upgrades and possibly no repository support is not that helpful, and kind of contrary to one of the stated points of Linux, to save old equipment from the scrap heap. I should probably buy new and upgrade, but the unit in question is already a backup and a toy to experiment with as it is, plus it does Last.fm and will make a power point if absolutely necessary (I won't pay for that software, I do it too rarely), so it still has a purpose that isn't worth buying a new computer over -- assuming it works.

Wasn't that one of the points of Linux?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 22nd, 2010, 02:54 AM
Total Noob Total Noob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by renegade600 View Post

one more thing, you completely misunderstood the point of linux.
Only doing what the mags say Linux is there for.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=198500289

Item titled: How to Revive an Old PC (Info Week, 2008)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 22nd, 2010, 03:29 AM
renegade600's Avatar
renegade600 renegade600 is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
O/S: Linux
Location: Osceola, Ar
Posts: 26,635
see http://www.linux.org/info/

that article you provided is one of the uses for but NOT the reason for linux or why linux was created. Like any other operating system, you cannot create an operating system to run all new and OLD computers and all old and new devices that is in those computers. There are distros that will run older computers like there are still windows versions available that will run older computers.

Last edited by renegade600; May 22nd, 2010 at 03:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 22nd, 2010, 07:28 AM
Jaytee's Avatar
Jaytee Jaytee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
O/S: Linux
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
Posts: 3,459
You have already asked about running Linux on low spec computers and been given some good opinion. If you are really looking to get a Linux system up and running then stop blaming Canonical (they are not responsible for the whole of the Linux distros) and do some research into the problem..
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/In...emRequirements
If, on the other hand , you are simply trolling.........................................: ((((
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Topic Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.