I've never heard that Linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular, was
"much faster" than XP but I've never measured it. The difference is in
terms of stability and safety in computing.

In my experience there isn't any big difference in "smoothness"
either, as long as both Operating Systems are running properly.
However, with minimal intervention Linux runs smoothly, while XP needs
anti-virus, defragmentation and anti-spyware, plus "Patch Tuesday" bug
fixes to avoid calamitous problems...

It sounds to me like you find XP better suited to your needs so why
keep beating yourself up with Linux?

Both comments are true. In some Linux distros the problem is the
resource-hungry GUI but it is easy to install a lighter and faster desktop
environment if Gnome is not convenient. Sometimes I find it convenient sometimes
not, depending in what mood I am (or maybe air pressure before the rain ?) and
when I do not want to use Gnome i log into another session, using FVWM or XFCE,
for example, which are lightweight and fast, like pretty little butterflies.
I bet a desktop environment like LXDE is faster than Windows XP ! But I do
not use LXDE.
And I bet that XFCE under Dreamlinux for example is even faster, something
like the speed of Windows 2000. Incredible, but true.
Yes, Windows 2000 and XP when clean and new are faster than the heavier
graphical interfaces of the major Linux distros.
One of Microsoft's merits, until recently when they expertly messed up the
whole thing with Vista was that their products could be run on the weakest
computers on the market. XP, for example, can be installed and used on a PC with
128 or even 92 MB of RAM and 2 GB hard disk (as I experienced) but Ubuntu
cannot. It is hard to find a Linux distro that runs on such hardware.
Windows 2000 flew on a PC with 200 MHz processor and 64 MB of RAM but the
only Linux distros I could run on it were Damn Small Linux (this one was really
very usable installed on the hard disk !) and Fat Free, a Puppy derivative.
So, Ubuntu is not for old and very weak computers.
By the way, this Gnome desktop in ubuntu is very comfortable and usable on my
PC with 2.66 GHz processor and 1 GB of RAM but KDE4 is....I have no words.
Quite much time ago i tried OpenSUSE. Its KDE4 I considered barely usable,
like trying to push a wagon, but I installed XFCE and that was really fast and
usable.

FVWM, XFCE, LXDE, KDE4 - too many options! Are these all desktops that can be
used with Ubuntu 10.04?


Installed via Synaptics?

Is there a site that will compare these options - plus & minus of each?

...but KDE4 is....I have no words. Should I take this as a positive or negative?

There is no such thing as too many options. Choice is good. Having no choice
is bad. Not being able to weigh the options is perhaps bad, but you are not
put in that situation because Ubuntu comes with one desktop, as does
Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.

Yes all can be installed via Synaptic.

Each desktop environment has its own niche. GNOME that comes with Ubuntu and
KDE that comes with Kubuntu are full blown desktop environments that can go
toe to toe. But XFCE which comes with Xubuntu offers less but not by much.
It also consumes fewer resources, but it has become a lot bigger over the
years and there is little to distinguish it from GNOME. All applications
that will run in KDE or GNOME will also run in XFCE.

As XFCE has grown, it has made less resource hungry desktop environments
more popular. LXDE that comes with Lubuntu has developed a loyal following.
It runs on hardware that would be taxed by GNOME. Fluxbox and Openbox also
fit into this category.

The problem arises that people with low end hardware want to run what others
do and this is often not the case despite having a light desktop environment
because the application such as OpenOffice has resource requirements of its
own that put it out of reach. Running with low specs means that the user
must be willing to compromise as in some cases this means using an
application such as Abiword instead of OpenOffice. I am amazed how many
people think that they can do what others do while using Puppy just because
it uses less and fail to think that their processor or RAM just does not cut
the mustard no matter what desktop environment they are using. That is why
lower resource desktop environments come with Abiword instead of OpenOffice.
The developer is being realistic where users frequently aren't.

We have choice so that people can tailor the environment for their own
systems. There is no sense for me to be running LXDE when KDE 4 works just
fine. I am limiting myself and unless that is my intention is seems absurd.
But I am free to do so if I want. That is what Linux is about. It empowers
users to do and try anything that they want. The results may not always be
good, but you can tinker under the hood to your heart's content. Life is
good!

This is a strange situation you have there. I can only suggest that you
don't have a well supported video card, or you have non-optimal options
for e.g. filesystem, software selection (e.g. a heavy weight window
manager on a resource starved machine)

It all comes down to the hardware you have, what linux software you're
running, and the drivers and tuning options. With the right (wrong)
drivers and tuning options, linux could look really bad. Obviously it's
not that way for most linux users, or they wouldn't be using it.

Some suggested that I should move to XP if I am finding it difficult to use
linux. But, I am a fan of open source system and I dont like to use things where
there is no learning curve. Also, now i like to use terminal, so, I dont want to
go back to windows. Hence, I will be persevere and stick with Linux and try to
learn.
The only reason I posted this message was that I installed a simulation software
from a vendor. And, in ubuntu 10.04 it was unusable. Whereas, in windows it
worked fluently. I was able to do my modelling without any problems in windows.
This conclusion is a fact.
Moreover, when I run videos or stream on internet etc, my "perception" is that
the videos are running faster on windows than ubuntu. Also, I installed a flight
simulator game from synaptic, and it was unusable in ubuntu. Whereas, a similar
flight simulator game was working well in XP
you may be right. But, how shall I find out that my video card is not well
supported?

You can start by telling us the make and model of your video card and by
googling ubuntu and [ video card].

But, I did not check my inbox for few days.
"VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc M22 [Mobility Radeon X300]"
I read somewhere that one might face graphics problems with Intel 8xxx series.
But, I dont think this applies to me.
Do you guys know how can I progress further? Any pointers?

I would suggest using another video card. Anyway, a spare video card is always
useful.
I have problems with my video card, also. It is Intel, also. I cannot run a
long list of Linux distros due to video card problems. I temporarily solved the
problem by using a very old video card but that one is not a solution for Ubuntu
and Dreamlinux. With the older Knoppix, CentOS and PCLinuxOS the old video card
was very good. Ubuntu can be used with it but the graphics are low resolution
and totally messed up, but there is still a fact with that video card: it shows
some details that cannot be seen with the new one.
By the way, please recommend me some video cards that are very compatible with
several Linux distros, including these strange ones like CentOS, PCLinuxOS and
the older Knoppix, before Adriane.

There are many flavours of Linux. You can roll your own with Gentoo, run a
stripped down system like Arch or run a leaner desktop environment. All will
give you better results. Ubuntu is trying to compete against Windows 7 and
OS/X and not Windows XP.

As for your problem with Ubuntu not working with your simulation, it was
never listed as one that it was meant to work with. You should have tried
Fedora or openSuSE which were recommended by the developer. Ubuntu is not
enterprise level. It is a general desktop environment. You can run things on
it that you can on other systems, but you may have to have a greater level
of expertise to do so.

Ubuntu gets blamed for lots of things, but usually (not always) the problem
is at the user level. It has been that way with computers from day one. We
are the weak link. We try to do things that we shouldn't just because
someone else can do it. That does not mean that it should be done or that we
are up to the task.

Sometimes the Ubuntu side may need updates, or Firefox may need extensions
updated, and sometimes a re-boot to flush history, etc. will help.

If you have anti-malware and registry cleaners on Windows they may be helping to
keep Windows fast for you.

System / Hardware drivers
may find you a faster (non open source) driver for you hardware?

Just give XP some time and it will slow down while Ubuntu will run the same.
Linux does not slow down as you add applications because applications do not
run from the system tray and stay resident in memory. Linux does not require
anti-virus, anti-malware and anti-trojan software running in the background.
Linux does not require re-booting so that you lose productivity. Linux has
no registry that can become fragmented, corrupted and balloon in size. Linux
file systems do not become fragmented as NTFS does. What you get with Ubuntu
will be the same throughout while Windows performance degrades over time.

How fast something runs is often a matter of perception rather than factual.
Many Windows users cut Windows a lot of slack and never seem to notice its
faults. For example, they just assume that re-booting is th enorm and don't
see this as down time and therefore don't factor it in. They do not factor
in the lost time it takes before you can use your computer with all of the
updates to ant-virus and other software. On my wife's Windows laptop it is
good five minutes before she can start to work as things load into memory
and begin updates. I can boot into Ubuntu in less time and be ready to work
right away and never be nagged or forced to re-boot.

Finally I would add that XP is older and does not come with as much built
into it. Ubuntu as grown in size over the past several of years and is
slower when compared against past versions of itself. Windows XP has had
only three SP upgrades. Ubuntu supports more devices than XP. You need to
add drivers by inserting disks. Ubuntu comes with them. The Linux kernel has
grown in size because it provides support for many more devices. To get my
Wacom Bamboo tablet working in Linux I just need to boot the computer. To
get it working in XP I need to install a driver and then I must re-boot.
When I plug it in it takes time before that driver is enabled. In Ubuntu it
is immediate. Ubuntu comes with compositing, XP doesn't. Ubuntu supports
Windows file types, XP does not support Linux file systems. I could go on
and on about the differences. They are many and varied.

Users have a choice. The systems are radically different. You are comparing
apples to oranges. If you prefer XP then use it. Many Windows users prefer
XP to Windows 7 or Vista for the same reasons you mention when comparing it
to Ubuntu.

Thanks for the comparison and contrast with Windows. Thanks to everyone for a
very fascinating discussion on Linux and moderators for your time you devote
this this group.

I have been real impressed with the boot up speed of Linux. So impressed I
timed it and Windows XP with a stop watch. Almost every Linux system I have
will boot up around 1 minute. I have three running currently and have tried
several versions of Ubuntu on these machines. My Dual core, 4 GB of RAM, 2.39
GHz Dell with Win XP multi media boot up in 7 minutes. Yes, it does have loads
of programs on the HDD, along with various defences., but my 5 year old Dell
laptop running Mint 8 with an energy conserving system, will still boot up in
much less time, 1 minute and does 90% of what I want, I am very impressed.

I got rid of XP because it was slow as a turtle. What surprised me is that 9.10
on my Dell 800mhz P3 runs far faster and better than 10.04 on my 2.4gig P4. Both
machines have 512ram and run a Samsung 2233 flat pannel. The P3 loads web pages
faster and overall performance is better. Both machines have only standard 'on
mother board' video.
Any clues as to why ?

Suggest you look at Linux distros of the same vintage of your XP.

Most Linux "upgrades" are seriously going to degrade the performance of older
hardware.

Early Debian derivatives such as MEPIS (some releases were actually based upon
earlier versions of Ubuntu) will run well on older hardware.

I have a new, Eee PC netbook, less than a month old, with Windoze and Ubuntu
10.04. Ubuntu is substantially faster booting up than Windoze.

You must be doing something wrong or have something set up wrong.

Have you tried running the Janitor or Sweeper programs? You may need to
re-boot after them to see the difference. If you haven't done your updates, I
would do those first.

The hardware was made to work on Windows and the OEM has optimised the
hardware for Windows. Linux is usually generic and performance takes a hit
because it is not optimised for your specific hardware. The solution is to
run a build your own distro such as Gentoo that optimises for your hardware.
The cost is your time.