Gaming Hate linux ubuntu

[yusuo]

I dont say this to anyone and if the question was valid I would help but coolness has had a few problems which involve the basics, if you cant master the basics its best to stay away, especially in relation to linux. Its not simple and the smallest mistakes can cause alot of problems. Ive learnt the hard way and after 7 years inside linux i've found debian based distro's (debian, ubuntu, mint) are alot easier than red hat based distros (fedora, Suse, Mandriva) but fundamentaly there all the same in the core. In the niecst possible way, either read up (alot) or go back to windows, if in doubt visit the distros irc channel and ask questions

If its not the battery I would put it down to your power management, if you tinker with that you should be ok, mines the same but ive set it that way, if im running off battery my pc goes into hibernation after 5 minutes non usage but never turns off when on power lead

 

[Deleted member 256505]

Coolness your the same guy who couldnt even enter your admin password correctly aren;t you, ill tell you what I told you then, if you cant even figure out the basics stay away from linux, you'll only end up breaking something

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that the OP is only objecting to the Ubuntu flavor, not Linux in general.

If you had bothered to think about what he wrote, you would notice he's telling him to stay away from Linux in general because the OP can't do with the basics of the OS, which are the same regardless of the distro.

Point taken. Yusuo, I'm sorry for snapping at you. Next time I'll take better care to think about what I have to say.

 

[junkerde]

i hate you

 

[Supercool330]

If you want something similar to Ubuntu but a little lighter weight, and without all the unity BS, check out Mint LXDE. I was a huge Ubuntu supporter for years, but I don't like the direction they have been going recently.

 

[yusuo]

I dont either supercool thats why im currently using the 10.04 lts edition, and when support on that runs out ill go to debian, its just the fact there forcing the unity interface onto everyone, and gnome 3 is well meh, give me gnome 2 anyday

 

[Mazor]

A 30-second boot time isn't undoable, but it is rare and people will often want video proof.

You've grown too used to Vista and 7. With a full blown XP Professional installation with nothing removed you'll generally be booting in less than 30 seconds if your hardware is mid tier ~8 year old P4-era or better (and your BIOS screen doesn't take 2 years). It's however true that in reality you'll see XP installations mostly booting much slower than that as people tend to ultrabloat.

In an attempt to not come off as too much of an XP fanboy I'll admit that Vista and 7 don't boot slower without a legitimate reason. For those who don't know, one of the main reasons XP boots faster is that it doesn't spend any time loading any DLLs into memory at boot time (and thus has to spend this time later when starting programs whereas Vista and 7 don't for the DLLs they have already loaded into memory).

 

[Arsic]

What netbook are you using? I ran 10.04, 10.10 and 11.04 on an ASUS 1015PEM with 1GB of RAM. It was smooth as butter even before the 2GB upgrade. Now I have an ASUS 1015PN and it's a beaut. I thoroughly enjoyed tweaking GNOME2 for all 3 because this was my preferred Window manager of choice. It ran better than my XFCE install and on par with my tweaked XP and 7 setups. I turn off all the useless animations for all my OSes.

You sound like you're into more ease of use, but don't take it offensively if you're told to use Mac or Windows. Especially so, since Ubuntu compatibility with netbooks are generally troublesome (from my experience, unless you're using a specially tweaked distro, which I'd still prefer to do on a stock Ubuntu anyways). That and power management has always been slightly better on Windows, although it is possible to tweak that further on any *nix box if you know what you're doing.

 

[Rydian]

You've grown too used to Vista and 7. With a full blown XP Professional installation with nothing removed you'll generally be booting in less than 30 seconds if your hardware is mid tier ~8 year old P4-era or better (and your BIOS screen doesn't take 2 years). It's however true that in reality you'll see XP installations mostly booting much slower than that as people tend to ultrabloat.

In an attempt to not come off as too much of an XP fanboy I'll admit that Vista and 7 don't boot slower without a legitimate reason. For those who don't know, one of the main reasons XP boots faster is that it doesn't spend any time loading any DLLs into memory at boot time (and thus has to spend this time later when starting programs whereas Vista and 7 don't for the DLLs they have already loaded into memory).

I don't consider performance of a 10-year old deprecated OS to be something somebody nowadays should be concerned with. People need to get off XP for a multitude of reasons ranging from standards to security.

 

[Mazor]

I don't consider performance of a 10-year old deprecated OS to be something somebody nowadays should be concerned with. People need to get off XP for a multitude of reasons ranging from standards to security.

We're talking about the OS that even now has the second largest marketshare, having been passed by 7 only a couple of months ago. My point was that because XP, the OS with the second largest marketshare in the world, will generally boot in less than 30 seconds on a default installation it's hardly anywhere near undoable and also, despite people bloating their installations, not very rare.

Still, I won't argue against your view that people should be upgrading from XP. It's true that they should.

Edit: Grammar.

 

[coolness]

installed both OS
1. on my second hardware
2. on my external hardware

 

[MercilessDeth]

I have a eeePC 901. It's the older model with the 900 MHz Celeron D instead of the 1.6 GHz Atom, 4 GB SSD and I believe it only has 512 MB of RAM.

I've never tried running Windows (even XP) on it, since I'm pretty sure that the performance would be incredibly poor. But I have tried NUMEROUS Linux distros on it, in pursuit of acceptable performance. As a Linux user, I'd rate my proficiency as moderate; I'm not put off by running things in command line, and I've written a few incredibly basic shell scripts, but it's not uncommon for me to have to rely on Google to figure out something I'm trying to do.

That said, I've gotten piss poor performance from Ubuntu's default installs. They say they support netbooks, but I'm guessing they expect me to have something newer/faster. But recently I tried Lubuntu, which is a fork of Ubuntu with LXDE and I'm pretty impressed with it. I didn't care for LXDE's initial configuration, but you can modify it a bit to get it to look more like Gnome's older default look. It comes with Chromium by default rather than Firefox (which on a slower machine results in a huge performance boost for browsing), and although I feel like some of the additional software is a bit bloated for a basic netbook, it's easy enough to remove all of those packages with Synaptic or even in CLI if you're comfortable with that.

 

[Deleted-236924]

I don't consider performance of a 10-year old deprecated OS to be something somebody nowadays should be concerned with. People need to get off XP for a multitude of reasons ranging from standards to security.

We're talking about the OS that even now has the second largest marketshare, having been passed by 7 only a couple of months ago. My point was that because XP, the OS with the second largest marketshare in the world, will generally boot in less than 30 seconds on a default installation it's hardly anywhere near undoable and also, despite people bloating their installations, not very rare.

Still, I won't argue against your view that people should be upgrading from XP. It's true that they should.

Edit: Grammar.

Reminds me of this.