ubuntu/kubuntu is sloooooooow!

[James Gray]

metin wrote:
> Have you ever used archlinux or pardus? They are real fast! (faster than 
> ubuntu/kubuntu on low spec machines).

Ah-ha.  Your original you made the wide generalisation that (K)Ubuntu is 
slow.  Now you qualify your statement with "on low spec machines".  No 
surprises there.  Ubuntu, as others have pointed out, is Linux with not 
just the kitchen sink, but the entire kitchen, dining room, lounge and 
garage thrown in!  If you want to run Ubuntu on low-spec hardware 
(define low spec BTW), then don't run KDE/Gnome...they are well known 
memory and CPU hogs (especially KDE).

> What I want to know is the reason why it is not as fast as others. This 
> is not to blame ubuntu people. I believe they are doing a great job! I 
> appreciate their efforts. But I'd like ubuntu at least as fast as other 
> fast distros. Right?

See above.  Personally, my work station in the office running Kubuntu is 
as fast as the guy next to me who runs Gentoo with Xfce.  Both machines 
are the same spec: 3.0GHz P4-D with 2GB RAM and Ati X600 video driving 
two 19" panels.

The P100, with 256MB RAM we installed Ubuntu on for a laugh[1] ran a bit 
slower, but with a bit of tweaking, and running Xfce, we actually got it 
usable for basic web/e-mail duties.

Still, for all the eye-candy and functionality provided out-of-the-box 
with Ubuntu, it is still Debian at its core, and as such can be 
customised up the whazoo.  Maybe the problem isn't Ubuntu?

HTH,

-- 
James

[1] We shoe-horned the P100 into a colleague's brand-new high-end 
machine and then gave him a hard time about how slow his new kit was :) 
  Never leave a "virgin" box around a bunch of motivated nerds with 
screwdrivers!  Heheh.