Reiver_Fluffi Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 If anyone's interested in those 3d Aiglx effects in Mandriva 2007, I made a couple of screenshots of Mona One here Naughty! Sorry, but anyone that knows anything knows that comparing a year old release of one distro, and a current beta of another is a no no. Sorry but somwhere down the line somebody's eventually gonna have to give you stick for comparing 2007RC2 with Ubuntu 5.10, which is fast approaching a year old. Given the pace of change at the moment, Ubuntu 5.10 isn't a valid comparison IMHO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) Sorry, but anyone that knows anything knows that comparing a year old release of one distro, and a current beta of another is a no no Thanks for your feedback! Sarcasm aside, Ubuntu 5.10 was current when I reviewed it, and now Mandriva 2007 is current when I'm viewing that. I make no commitments to review every version of every distro. That would require far too much effort so I make a sample depending on what I find interesting. I also looked at Xubuntu 6.06 if you read on. If you don't want to compare boot times or start times then don't, or if you want to take into account the version numbers and ages then do. However I personally think the comparisons are useful. Not exhaustive, not complete, but still useful. Of course I'll take a look at future Ubuntus too, or maybe something different. And of course I'll be getting the fully released (no longer beta) Mandriva 2007 to have a proper look, most probably both the One (to update that brief review) and also the full install (to replace my 2005). I do make it clear several times that Mandriva 2007 is still pre-release. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with my comparisons! ;) Edited September 28, 2006 by neddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver_Fluffi Posted September 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Sorry, but anyone that knows anything knows that comparing a year old release of one distro, and a current beta of another is a no no Thanks for your feedback! Sarcasm aside, Ubuntu 5.10 was current when I reviewed it, and now Mandriva 2007 is current when I'm viewing that. I make no commitments to review every version of every distro. That would require far too much effort so I make a sample depending on what I find interesting. I also looked at Xubuntu 6.06 if you read on. If you don't want to compare boot times or start times then don't, or if you want to take into account the version numbers and ages then do. However I personally think the comparisons are useful. Not exhaustive, not complete, but still useful. Of course I'll take a look at future Ubuntus too, or maybe something different. And of course I'll be getting the fully released (no longer beta) Mandriva 2007 to have a proper look, most probably both the One (to update that brief review) and also the full install (to replace my 2005). I do make it clear several times that Mandriva 2007 is still pre-release. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with my comparisons! ;) Nope, I'm a Fedora user, couldn't care less what version of Ubuntu you used, just raising a point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 couldn't care less what version of Ubuntu you used, just raising a point!Apprently you do care, because the version of Ubuntu I used was exactly what you described as "a no no". If I had made statements like "Mandriva is better than Ubuntu because Mandriva 2007 has version 8 of program X and Ubuntu 5.10 only has version 6" then obviously that would be meaningless, but that's not what I wrote. The only time I mention Ubuntu is in the comparison of boot times, which vary wildly between distros. If I was told that Mandriva 2007 takes 4 and a half minutes to boot from CD, and I didn't know how long other live distros take to boot, I wouldn't have a clue whether 4 and a half minutes was good or bad. As it is, I've taken exactly the same hardware and run several different distros on it, to allow a comparison, for what it's worth. As it turned out, Ubuntu 5.10 runs horribly slow on this particular hardware, and on all the other machines I tried it on, in comparison to other live distros on the same hardware. And as I said it was new when I tried it. That table also lets me see how distros of various ages compare. Should they get slower, as more features are added and everything gets bloated? Not always, because for example Mandriva 2007 is faster than Ubuntu 5.10. Should they get progressively faster, as programs get improved and get leaner, and hardware support improves? Not always, because the even older Knoppix 3.7 is one of the fastest of the bunch. How much effect does the desktop (here KDE, Gnome, E and Xfce) have on the speed? That's just one of the things I'm trying to find out. As well as how they look, how they hang together as a live distro, how easy they are to use, what apps are included, how friendly they are to newcomers etc etc. I think the comparisons are very valid, imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Maybe a load of services need disabling to help it boot quicker :) Mandriva 2006 boots faster than 2007 :o Still gonna give it a go and test it out as soon as it's available for me to download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver_Fluffi Posted September 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 couldn't care less what version of Ubuntu you used, just raising a point!Apprently you do care, because the version of Ubuntu I used was exactly what you described as "a no no". Yeah because the best comparisons are like for like, with one common denominator, even if it is just for your own benefit, the fact that you have that table there and presenting it publicly is implicitly inviting people to draw comparisons based on the statistics presented! (Could some one maybe split this discussion, kinda ruining the show off thread, sorry!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Split from Show Off Your Desktop 2006. Continue the discussion here :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver_Fluffi Posted September 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Split from Show Off Your Desktop 2006. Continue the discussion here :D Thanks :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artificial Intelligence Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Hmmm..... Ubuntu 5.10 was the worst version of Ubuntu though. Alot of speed improvent (with other improvement too ofcause, but specific speed) was introduced into Ubuntu with the next released after (6.06). The beta testers who's testing the next release (6.10) says (those I've talked to) even more speed improvement have been introduced into the distro. But the speed can be halted as the devs are messing with the beta version. So perhaps then a comparison will fit :) But again, the hardware plays a major roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 the best comparisons are like for like, with one common denominatorLike the hardware? the fact that you have that table there and presenting it publicly is implicitly inviting people to draw comparisons based on the statistics presented!You're absolutely right, that's exactly what I'm doing!And in order to help people do that, I carefully mention that Mandriva 2007 is only a release candidate, I explicitly mention that I'm comparing it with Ubuntu 5.10, on the Ubuntu page I make special note of the fact that it's not the most recent and that 6.06 is now out, I included a page on Xubuntu 6.06, and I wrote a whole section on the Ubuntu 5.10 page (you did read that, didn't you?) trying to examine various reasons why the timings might be so different. Including the development of software over time, increase in complexity and so on. What I did was present the figures and make special effort to point out what was being compared. Or should I forbid comparison of any two releases separated by more than 3 months of release date? I can definitely compare Ubuntu 5.10 with Mandriva 2006, because they came out at roughly the same time. I can certainly compare Mandriva 2006 with Mandriva 2007 because that reveals whether things are getting bulkier or more efficient, as well as what's new and different, what's improved and so on. So as long as I explain what I'm comparing (which I do in some detail) then I can with good justification compare any of the live distros that I've played with on this hardware. As you say, with a common denominator. I'm not over-generalising, I'm not making misleading statements or hiding details. To AI: Yes I had heard that Ubuntu 6.06 had great improvements, I simply haven't tried it yet. But as I said, I'll certainly check out the forthcoming releases, and write about those too :) Maybe a load of services need disabling to help it boot quickerYou're right, Ian, but these are all live versions which I'm just running as they are. It doesn't mean that a fully installed and tuned version of distro X is faster than a fully installed and tuned version of distro Y just because the live version is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.