Ubuntu 10.04 Is Good?

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

I had a good time using Ubuntu on my old PC until version 9.10. When I upgraded to 10.04, I noticed that my old hardware had many issues with it, due to which it became slow and sluggish. I reverted back to 9.10. However, I would like to know if 10.04 is better than 9.10 or not. I know for a fact that the boot time is much faster for 10.04, and that the default theme is changed, and that the window control buttons are placed to the left instead of the right (an option which can be customised, of course).Other than these are there any bigger changes that improve the user experience? Can someone who's been using 10.04 please share their experiences over here?

[yordan 10]

Depends from what you mean when you say "better".Usually, old computers love old software versions. The new versions need more memory, more powerful graphic adapters, faster cpu's. So, I would never recommend newer OS versions on old systems.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

Depends from what you mean when you say "better".

Some issues to complain about in 9.10 were the constant "Authentication required" boxes that popped up while trying to mount any NTFS partitions. There was an option to disable this in the earlier version, but it was omitted in this one, and it reminded me of the infamous UAC from Vista. Another displeasing feature in 9.10 for me was that it seemed to be a bit sluggish at times, and didn't perform smoothly. So I was wondering if 10.04 improved in terms of speed not only at boot time but also during the whole session.

Usually, old computerslove old software versions. The new versions need more memory, more powerful graphic adapters, faster cpu's. So, I would never recommend newer OS versions on old systems.

That's true. Ubuntu was always an exception because till 9.10 the minimum requirements were always something like 256MB RAM, 10GB hard disk and minimal CPU speed and graphic adapters were almost optional. I think the developers decided to take the visual appeal to the next level and for this reason they upgraded the requirements as well In any case the new version simply won't work at normal speed in my system, so I have to say goodbye to new versions of Ubuntu until I get a new PC. Ouch!

[iGuest 3]

This is still a new LTS release.Ubuntu 10.04 Is Good?

I remember when 9.10 was new.  I had similar issues, but it eventually stabilized. Although I agree, older hardware will struggle with 10.04, you can increase performance dramatically by maxing out RAM, running Gnome (as opposed to KDE), limiting the virtual desktops to two and turning off effects.

Also, try different browsers to see which one performs better.  You can disable unwanted services to boot performance as well. What do your load averages look like with top?

-reply by Corey

 

[FirefoxRocks 0]

If the resources for Ubuntu are taxing for you, you can try Xubuntu 10.04, which still has very low system requirements considering its functions similar to Ubuntu.

[mahesh2k 0]

I'll second for xubuntu. Xubuntu takes less resources than ubuntu. These days even linux is competiting for graphical richness of desktop. Because of this new version of ubuntu has many improvments. You can cut that all if you use xfce desktop manager. And i think xubuntu comes loaded with xfce manager. So that is one way to go and another way is try and ask in official ubuntu forums about how can you make ubuntu perform with lower resources. And about ubuntu taking less ram i think they stopped supporting 256 MB RAM after 8.10 version if i'm not wrong.

[H.O.D 0]

hey guys I was reading about Xubuntu on wikipedia when i found this:

The Xfce desktop environment is intended to use fewer system resources than the default GNOME, but this does not seem to be the case for the Xubuntu implementation of Xfce. Testing has concluded that Xubuntu's RAM usage actually is greater than Ubuntu with GNOME

is it true then? you were saying xubuntu consumes less system resources than ubuntu but wikipedia has something else to say. there was something else on the site, about Lubuntu, which is meant to be used for light computing. it is supposed to be using half the RAM as compared to ubuntu and xubuntu. now if that is true then switching to that would be a better option as the RAM requirements would be lesser than ubuntu 10.04.

And about ubuntu taking less ram i think they stopped supporting 256 MB RAM after 8.10 version if i'm not wrong.

i ordered a free cd when version 9.04 was out and on it it was printed that the minimum requirement is still 256mb. and i know for a fact that the simpleton has a 512mb pc running 9.10 quite smoothly so i think the minimum requirement got changed from 10.04 itself, as it is a long term release and so they might have made quite a few changes.

[mahesh2k 0]

is it true then? you were saying xubuntu consumes less system resources than ubuntu but wikipedia has something else to say. there was something else on the site, about Lubuntu, which is meant to be used for light computing. it is supposed to be using half the RAM as compared to ubuntu and xubuntu. now if that is true then switching to that would be a better option as the RAM requirements would be lesser than ubuntu 10.04.

I'm not sure what and who did this testing and where it is taken. But almost every slick linux distros suggest xfce if people wnat to cut on their resource. It'll be better if anyone can seriously let me know about this resource where they tested this stuff out. Resource wise, gnome takes more and after that KDE and then rest of the other window managers are preferred. I don't know what they tested out and found out that gnome is using less resource than xfce. can't believe those tests unless i see reference for this.