on triple boot, vista xp and ubuntu.. guess which one is the slowest?

Vista sucks up system resources like a big fat hog thats been starved for a
month!

performance drops about 100% compared to XP and 150% compared to Ubuntu....

Not a linux zelot... but after comparing the three, ubuntu has the best
multitasking and memory handeling I have ever seen... you can be running
many many stuff and nothing gets bogged down at all!!! I am talking about
huge programs, for example running a virtual machine.. Try doing the same
amount tasks with vista and it will crumble to a crawl!

Vista: better memory managment? LOL MY FOOT has better memory managment!

Then there is something wrong with your PC...more likely a defect with the
operator.
I have ubuntu, XP, and Vista.
Vista is the most stable of the 3, then XP, then ubuntu (but I am new at
ubuntu, playing with Xsettings)
ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB, never
even touched the swap partition.
ubuntu also seems to put resourses to "sleep" until needed.
If your PC has 2GB of RAM....why not use it?

" non flammable on Vista" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Vista sucks up system resources like a big fat hog thats been starved for
> a month!
>
> performance drops about 100% compared to XP and 150% compared to
> Ubuntu....
>
> Not a linux zelot... but after comparing the three, ubuntu has the best
> multitasking and memory handeling I have ever seen... you can be running
> many many stuff and nothing gets bogged down at all!!! I am talking about
> huge programs, for example running a virtual machine.. Try doing the same
> amount tasks with vista and it will crumble to a crawl!
>
> Vista: better memory managment? LOL MY FOOT has better memory managment!
>
>
>
>

I use vm's a lot. I use both Vista x86 and Vista x64 with VPC 2007 and
Ubuntu with VMWare Server. I prefer Vista x64 with VPC 2007 for most tasks.
Oddly enough VPC seems to work better with Windows guests and VMWare works
best with Linux guests. As far as speed goes I don't see any noticeable
difference between Vista x64 and Ubuntu when using vm's. I do see a
difference when using Vista x86 with VPC 2007 but that computer has a slower
CPU and only 2 GB of RAM.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/



" non flammable on Vista" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Vista sucks up system resources like a big fat hog thats been starved for
> a month!
>
> performance drops about 100% compared to XP and 150% compared to
> Ubuntu....
>
> Not a linux zelot... but after comparing the three, ubuntu has the best
> multitasking and memory handeling I have ever seen... you can be running
> many many stuff and nothing gets bogged down at all!!! I am talking about
> huge programs, for example running a virtual machine.. Try doing the same
> amount tasks with vista and it will crumble to a crawl!
>
> Vista: better memory managment? LOL MY FOOT has better memory managment!
>
>
>
>

you are stupid.. add the frikin resource meter on the panel of ubuntu and
set it to show the ram as well as the other things.. after a wile hover your
mouse over that little graph and see the magic! Here it caches all the ram!
its full... and its FAST!

You will see that its using the ram almost 100% after some time as cached
stuff

if ubuntu is not running for you, well something is wrong with your
computer...


illiterate smarty pants! Vista is the worse modern OS by far!



"forty-nine" <> wrote in message news:flqoc3$8pm$...
> Then there is something wrong with your PC...more likely a defect with the
> operator.
> I have ubuntu, XP, and Vista.
> Vista is the most stable of the 3, then XP, then ubuntu (but I am new at
> ubuntu, playing with Xsettings)
> ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB, never
> even touched the swap partition.
> ubuntu also seems to put resourses to "sleep" until needed.
> If your PC has 2GB of RAM....why not use it?
>
> " non flammable on Vista" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Vista sucks up system resources like a big fat hog thats been starved for
>> a month!
>>
>> performance drops about 100% compared to XP and 150% compared to
>> Ubuntu....
>>
>> Not a linux zelot... but after comparing the three, ubuntu has the best
>> multitasking and memory handeling I have ever seen... you can be running
>> many many stuff and nothing gets bogged down at all!!! I am talking about
>> huge programs, for example running a virtual machine.. Try doing the same
>> amount tasks with vista and it will crumble to a crawl!
>>
>> Vista: better memory managment? LOL MY FOOT has better memory managment!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

" non flammable on XP" <> wrote in message
news:47810f9e$...
> you are stupid.. add the frikin resource meter on the panel of ubuntu and
> set it to show the ram as well as the other things.. after a wile hover
> your mouse over that little graph and see the magic! Here it caches all
> the ram! its full... and its FAST!
>
> You will see that its using the ram almost 100% after some time as cached
> stuff
>
> if ubuntu is not running for you, well something is wrong with your
> computer...
>
>
> illiterate smarty pants! Vista is the worse modern OS by far!
>
>
>

WTF are you talking about ?
I never said ubuntu doesn't run...It runs reasonably well.

>ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB, never
>even touched the swap partition.

this is incorrect.. and you are so used to vista thrashing your disks all
the time that you wonder why an OS is running so smoothly??? All that
thrashing you know uses CPU power to move data all the time... Vista has
been designed very badly from the structure to the interface..
everything about it is crap

Gesh... vistaboys irritate me

"forty-nine" <> wrote in message news:flr473$bgb$...
>
> " non flammable on XP" <> wrote in message
> news:47810f9e$...
>> you are stupid.. add the frikin resource meter on the panel of ubuntu and
>> set it to show the ram as well as the other things.. after a wile hover
>> your mouse over that little graph and see the magic! Here it caches all
>> the ram! its full... and its FAST!
>>
>> You will see that its using the ram almost 100% after some time as cached
>> stuff
>>
>> if ubuntu is not running for you, well something is wrong with your
>> computer...
>>
>>
>> illiterate smarty pants! Vista is the worse modern OS by far!
>>
>>
>>
>
> WTF are you talking about ?
> I never said ubuntu doesn't run...It runs reasonably well.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:25:23 -0500, forty-nine wrote:

> Then there is something wrong with your PC...more likely a defect with
> the operator.
> I have ubuntu, XP, and Vista.
> Vista is the most stable of the 3, then XP, then ubuntu (but I am new at
> ubuntu, playing with Xsettings)
> ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB,
> never even touched the swap partition.
> ubuntu also seems to put resourses to "sleep" until needed. If your PC
> has 2GB of RAM....why not use it?

Actually it does, but you won't see that reflected in used memory. If you
really wanna see the actual memory usage including system cache, add the
system monitor applet to your top panel. Simply right click it, select
"Add to Panel", and then go find System Monitor.

You should then see a little small black window in the top bar. By
default I think it only shows CPU but you can access it's property and
add memory usage.

It will then show user memory (the 240mb you are referring to) as dark
green and it'll show the cache memory as light green. Both combined will
usually, over time, fill up nearly all available memory.

Since cache memory though does not take away from available memory for
applications, it is not reported as memory that is in-use.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

��事��出�日�ん�����
��事忘れ�������ら

Do you actually have a PC that's worth a sh!t ?
Vista doesn't thrash my HD's all the time.
It runs smooth...I don't see this massive CPU usage neither.

You know....lying will get you a spanking...better behave.


" non flammable on XP" <> wrote in message
news:47811508$...
> >ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB,
> >never even touched the swap partition.
>
> this is incorrect.. and you are so used to vista thrashing your disks all
> the time that you wonder why an OS is running so smoothly??? All that
> thrashing you know uses CPU power to move data all the time... Vista has
> been designed very badly from the structure to the interface..
> everything about it is crap
>
> Gesh... vistaboys irritate me
>
> "forty-nine" <> wrote in message
> news:flr473$bgb$...
>>
>> " non flammable on XP" <> wrote in message
>> news:47810f9e$...
>>> you are stupid.. add the frikin resource meter on the panel of ubuntu
>>> and set it to show the ram as well as the other things.. after a wile
>>> hover your mouse over that little graph and see the magic! Here it
>>> caches all the ram! its full... and its FAST!
>>>
>>> You will see that its using the ram almost 100% after some time as
>>> cached stuff
>>>
>>> if ubuntu is not running for you, well something is wrong with your
>>> computer...
>>>
>>>
>>> illiterate smarty pants! Vista is the worse modern OS by far!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WTF are you talking about ?
>> I never said ubuntu doesn't run...It runs reasonably well.
>
>

"Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:25:23 -0500, forty-nine wrote:
>
>> Then there is something wrong with your PC...more likely a defect with
>> the operator.
>> I have ubuntu, XP, and Vista.
>> Vista is the most stable of the 3, then XP, then ubuntu (but I am new at
>> ubuntu, playing with Xsettings)
>> ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB,
>> never even touched the swap partition.
>> ubuntu also seems to put resourses to "sleep" until needed. If your PC
>> has 2GB of RAM....why not use it?
>
> Actually it does, but you won't see that reflected in used memory. If you
> really wanna see the actual memory usage including system cache, add the
> system monitor applet to your top panel. Simply right click it, select
> "Add to Panel", and then go find System Monitor.
>
> You should then see a little small black window in the top bar. By
> default I think it only shows CPU but you can access it's property and
> add memory usage.
>
> It will then show user memory (the 240mb you are referring to) as dark
> green and it'll show the cache memory as light green. Both combined will
> usually, over time, fill up nearly all available memory.
>
> Since cache memory though does not take away from available memory for
> applications, it is not reported as memory that is in-use.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ��事��出�日�ん�����
> ��事忘れ�������ら

I've used process monitor before...use the internet connection section as a
small panel (or applet ?) in the taskbar.
I personally have yet to see any vast improvement speed wise on any "normal
use" of the PC.
Vista runs quite well on my PC.
But with the graphic effects I have enabled on the Ubuntu desktop... I use
the Cube, true glass themes ( It's pretty cool that I can see completely
thru a terminal window)....it handles all those effects with no problem...so
ubuntu is no slouch either.
But the "one" is no better than the "other".

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:00:01 -0500, forty-nine wrote:

> Do you actually have a PC that's worth a sh!t ? Vista doesn't thrash my
> HD's all the time. It runs smooth...I don't see this massive CPU usage
> neither.

Well Vista did plenty of HD thrashing on my system when I tested it on
here. More than likely the indexer. Just WTF it was indexing though I
would like to know as I didn't have anything installed beyond Vista and a
game or two. No documents, no files, no pictures, no videos, no music,
nothing.

But Vista still did manage to keep the HD busy somehow. It wasn't overly
detrimental to performance on my system, I mean this system scores
5.3-5.9 across the board in the vista score thing. However....it still
raised a "wtf is it doing and why is it doing it?" question in my head.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

��事��出�日�ん�����
��事忘れ�������ら