Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
12.04 AFIAK doesn't have better hardware support, at least regarding the latest hardware. It is more stable then regular releases, so I suggest you stick with it, 14.04 is coming soon and it's a far better alternative than 13.10 which is giving people some headache.
13.10 has newer software but it doesn't necessarily mean better performance.
I took this attitude back when 13.10 came out... and 13.04.... and 12.10...
What can I say? I'm lazy. :P
13.10 has better performance and supports newer drivers
if you're happy with the performance you're getting stick with 12.04. if not... you could always install a mainline kernel and add xorg-edgers ppa to your system to tide you over for the next few months. you'll get similar graphics performance to 13.10 and the rest of your system will be relatively stable.....
With that in mind, I advise you to use Ubuntu until Mir rolls out where it's just going to be disgraced by far on Ubuntu's side than your own.
The LTS->LTS upgrade feature is known to be very buggy and requires some time to mature (upgrading generally keeps getting worse with normal upgrades on release date, however - eventually it might just come from the whole Canonical-egotrip stuff and might be less annoying with e.g. Xubuntu).
lol anyone get the refrence?
In regards of performance, there are quite a few things to consider.
Ubuntu's LTS versions are mainly based off of Debian Testing, so the performance is usually the same. But Ubuntu tends to break a lot more than Debian, in one year of using Ubuntu you'll probably have a lot more breakage then if you were using Debian testing/unstable for tens of years (according to testimonies).
Ubuntu's non-LTS releases are mainly based off of Debian Unstable/Experimental, and we know that newer software equals better performance in most cases such as newer drivers or Kernels. So, you might get a few fps more in Ubuntu non-LTS than Debian Stable/Testing, but then again, the chances of Ubuntu breaking something is huge, Ubuntu is not Debian and it breaks a lot. In fact, I've had less breakage in Arch than Ubuntu, probably because Canonical loves to release software when it's not finished. By not finished I mean they've put their dirty hands on it, modify the damn thing, then release it half-finished.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_wheezybsd_freeze&num=2
So, if you want to experiment with Ubuntu, you might get a little percentage of performance improvement, and the chances of your system breaking improves a lot. Just keep in mind that you will also get a key-logger and a a spyware by default. That doesn't happen on Debian. You can trust Debian.
Just to finish:
Arch has way newer software than Debian or Ubuntu will ever had, and still I haven't noticed any noticeable performance gain. It's like:
70 fps on Debian Stable
72 fps on Debian Testing and Ubuntu LTS
(?) fps on non-LTS releases of Ubuntu
75 fps on Arch.
That's why I'm going back to Debian. My eye/brain won't feel the difference of that gain, and being rock-solid with Debian is better than getting to fix things once in a while.