#Ubuntu is surprisingly unresponsive compared to Windows. Launching programs can take 5-10 seconds (with no indication that anything is happening). Resizing a window sometimes resizes the frame and then takes a second to fill in the contents. Even the internet seems slow to respond.
Some of this might be due to the fact that Ubuntu is running off a physical hard drive while Windows was running off an SSD, but that doesn't seem sufficient to explain it.
I would have expected to get *more* performance without Microsoft constantly uploading data. Does this match anyone else's experience? Any ideas?
@peterdrake For a more fair comparison, you should probably use... Literally any other distro. Ubuntu is the only one that insists on using snaps to distribute desktop applications, and one of the major downsides is that they're really slow to launch.
That, and of course HDD vs SSD is going to contribute as well.
As for the true question, if Windows would actually be faster or slower than Linux in an Apples-to-apples comparison, I don't know. Linux would probably win on weaker hardware.
@mekuso I appreciate the advice, but this is exactly what I was hoping to avoid.
Web: Interested in trying Linux? Ubuntu is a good choice for beginners. It's easy to set up and has reasonable defaults.
Experts (in unison): Oh god, anything but that!
30-hour rabbit hole: You should really be using the Svirfneblin distribution. It's still in beta, but if you just recompile the kernel...
I want the least needy OS.
@mekuso It's at least on the list here:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-linux-desktops-for-beginners/
It's #1 here:
https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-beginners/
It's also what we use in our Linux CS teaching lab; consistency is worth something.