It is true that there are still many months to go before the new Ubuntu 16.10 Yakkety Yak is officially released, but everything indicates that the new version it will be a big change in performance in the Canonical distribution.
La websites Openbenchmarking.org has made a comparison between the development versions of Ubuntu 16.10 and the current Ubuntu 16.04.1, a fully finished version that offered stability and speed, although as seen, not all that the user expected.
While it is true that Ubuntu 16.10 is still under development, it is also true that it includes new parts such as the GCC 6.1.1 or Mesa 12.0.1 compiler and other parts that are the same as Ubuntu 16.04 but that will change with respect to the final version in this case we mean to the kernel that version 4.8 will use and in the tests it had version 4.4 of Linux.
Ubuntu 16.10 development version offers better performance than Ubuntu 16.04
But the performance tests have not been as impressive as many would expect, in some tests Yakkety Yak has been below Ubuntu 16.04.1, something that indicates the instability that the distribution still has, but it is something that gives more value to the next Ubuntu version.
Yakkety Yak will have quite a few novelties in its construction. GCC 6.1.1 will be one of them, but there is also the new kernel and possibly the inclusion of Unity 8 and MIR, elements that many of us are expecting to work in a standard way and performance may increase after implementing these elements, elements that may still appear.
Still, from my personal experience, I do not doubt in the good performance of Ubuntu 16.10 Well, the versions that come out in the months of October always work better for me than in the months of April and my case is not unique. If the development of a software or an operating system were proportional, at this point we would be facing the announcement of a great operating system, unfortunately this is not the case What do you think of the new version of Ubuntu?
what they have is to put unity 8 and stop so much nonsense
archlnux and gentoo are the best distros, they can be put as we please
16.04.1 improved to the release version. I am quite satisfied, although I still like 12.04. One question, if I don't update to 16.10 because I prefer the long-term versions, won't I have all the improvements of the new version?
But only the development version, let's see how the final comes out!
PEEEERO It won't be LTS.
Since I used Ubuntu 9 they have been saying that each new version is faster
Without having tried it, I believe it. I've had enough dramas with 16.04 already
come on ubuntu! 😀 Of course I use Arch, but I like that this great Linux distribution keeps improving.
But arch is much more difficult and also now they removed the install scripts (no resources)
I personally do not use Ubuntu for lack of a good midi sequencer and a video editor that allows you
do themes like in imovie, as soon as this I will think about it, the truth is that free software is giving
giant steps but as long as there isn't something like Garageband or Imovie for Ubuntu I don't want to know anything
regards
P.S. Rosegarden has the GUI of the last century, and jackd fights a lot with pulse and that script of jackd and pulse works like the ass (pardon the expression) that has to be corrected for Ubuntu to regain my interest.
PD2 If you don't know what the themes are in imovie, look for it on youtube or google videos it will come out
Version 16.04 has worked very well for me and better than the previous ones. As for the new version, I have not tried 16.10 but for now I will settle for sticking with 16.04 ... I prefer to keep what works for me for now (quite well). I do not think it is necessary to update to another version and simply to change. I prefer to spend some time until I update my operating system to a higher version. I don't need to update to another version every six months .. and… why change what works well?
Well, I had the brilliant idea to upgrade from 16.04 to 16.10 and the experience has not been good at all. It takes longer to start up, takes longer to shut down and nothing smooth works, even the mouse arrow gets stuck. I don't know what's going on, but I'll be back to 16.04.
On the other hand, if Ubuntu boasted of something, it was the few resources necessary to function and versions 7, 8 worked much better with little memory and also with very good graphic effects.
I really don't see much of a contribution, it looks more and more like Windows in terms of requirements and bugs.
A pity.
Well .. contradicting myself and what I published in a previous post ... I have installed Ubuntu 16.10 on my Toshiba laptop along with Windows 10 ... Result? The balance, in general, is good ... but I am going to detail some curiosities ... My Toshiba S50-B-12W laptop, with a two-core i7 processor and 16 gigabytes of RAM works very well with Windows 10 ... fluid, fast and using it intensively. the battery usually lasts between 4 and 5 hours ... If I restart the laptop with Ubuntu 16.10, I do observe that this operating system takes longer to start up than Windows 10. I have no objections to the latter but I review it as a detail. As for shutdown, both Ubuntu 16.10 and Windows 10 shut down the laptop quickly and well. However, in the use of Ubuntu (which I have personalized a bit in my own way, adding it as applications to the Start, Cairo Dock or Teamviewer and little else) with a not very intensive office use, viewing a video on YouTube, some query on the internet ... the battery does not last me more than ... TWO HOURS !!!! In fact, charging the laptop to 100% often indicates an estimated duration of 1 hours and 58 minutes ... but I use it with Ubuntu ... and the battery really lasts that long ... I have tested it several times ... battery charged at one hundred percent ... and with Ubuntu the laptop does not arrive after two hours ... I load the laptop one hundred percent and with Windows 10 it lasts between 4 and 5 hours! And the estimate that Windows makes also corresponds to how long the battery really lasts, and sometimes I use very intensive applications in Windows and it lasts longer than with Ubuntu ... Another test: I charge the laptop to c100%, I start with Ubuntu: estimated duration: less than two hours .. restart to Windows 10: Estimated duration: about 4 hours ... and that really lasts for me ... Why with Ubuntu 16.10 the battery at 100% does not reach two real hours and with Windows 10 about four hours or even plus? So much battery "sucks" Ubuntu? I don't care that my battery lasts less with Ubuntu ... but I am going to use a more resource-consuming application, I'm going to Windows 10 and it compensates me more because the battery lasts twice as long ... This has caught my attention . And I have a lot more programs installed on Windows 10 than on Ubuntu 16.10. Despite that, I find myself many times more comfortable working with Ubuntu even though the battery lasts less ... but it is a small inconvenience to have to resort much more to the charger than with Windows 10.