Re: X performance - Questions

This is a discussion on Re: X performance - Questions ; On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0700, Ben wrote: > Hi all, > My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4 > and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much > faster ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: X performance

  1. Re: X performance

    On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0700, Ben wrote:

    > Hi all,
    > My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4
    > and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much
    > faster than X in RedHat. The applications takes a bit longer to load
    > under linux as compared to in NT. I use 160MB swap space for linux.
    > What seems to be the problem? Why is there a difference in
    > performance? And sometimes Netscape closes by itself under my linux X.
    >
    > Any suggestions for improving performance?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Ben

    um

    Don't run netscape, run mozilla phoenix/firebird

    Don't run kde/gnome, run pwm/fluxbox instead

    if you can afford, buy more ram, 80 megabyte is poor, 256-512 megabyte is
    better.
    Which application tooks longer to load?

    improving perfomance:

    (Re)compile your programs for the i686 archiecture and the pentium3
    processor.
    (Re)compile your kernel for ---"the same as above"---
    Turn of programs you ain't using (man top)

    And plz, don't use redhat



  2. Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)

    "Jonas" wrote in message
    newsan.2003.08.20.10.10.24.113951@telia.com...
    > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0700, Ben wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > > My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4
    > > and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much
    > > faster than X in RedHat. The applications takes a bit longer to load
    > > under linux as compared to in NT. I use 160MB swap space for linux.
    > > What seems to be the problem? Why is there a difference in
    > > performance? And sometimes Netscape closes by itself under my linux X.
    > >
    > > Any suggestions for improving performance?
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > > Ben

    > um
    >
    > Don't run netscape, run mozilla phoenix/firebird
    >
    > Don't run kde/gnome, run pwm/fluxbox instead
    >
    > if you can afford, buy more ram, 80 megabyte is poor, 256-512 megabyte is
    > better.
    > Which application tooks longer to load?
    >
    > improving perfomance:
    >
    > (Re)compile your programs for the i686 archiecture and the pentium3
    > processor.
    > (Re)compile your kernel for ---"the same as above"---
    > Turn of programs you ain't using (man top)
    >
    > And plz, don't use redhat
    >


    This all is very sound advise. Don't use Linux on desktop at all. I tried to
    get a browser and mail/newsreader to work at bearable speed but finally gave
    up and
    and started to use Win2000.
    Compared to Mozilla/Opera/KNode/KMail
    IE & OE are flying. AltDESK is no match to the
    corresponding program in fvwm package but it's bearable.

    Nevermind that I have to use Reflection X
    to run emacs, xterms and the Motif app I'm developing.
    Non operational backspace is a small price to pay
    for a desktop that does not crawl (I did not
    run KDE mind youm I used fvwm).

    My next step it to ditch linux on my home computer
    though I keep it solely because cdparanoia/cdrecord
    are so much easier(faster) to use from command line
    than Nero. And mplayer kinda works most of the time
    (I like it better than WinDVD actually)

    Servers are the only places where Linux belongs really.
    Desktop apps in Linux crawl (if work at all).
    They're just written this way I guess. Probably it's because of the portly
    libgtk.
    Opera seems quicker than Mozilla at times but still is
    a dog compared to IE. So, Qt sucks as well
    performance wise. I guess.

    It's funny though, because I remember how proud
    this crowd was some years ago bitching how slow
    Windows was at the time and how much faster
    anything built on top of X11 was :-)



  3. Re: Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:45:59 -0700, nl wrote:
    >
    > Servers are the only places where Linux belongs really.
    > Desktop apps in Linux crawl (if work at all).
    > They're just written this way I guess. Probably it's because of the portly
    > libgtk.


    No, its because you lack the time or skill to configure your system.
    That's a choice. My current desktop does not crawl, nor any Linux
    desktop I've ever had (going back to 1997 or so).

    --
    Hal Burgiss


  4. Re: Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)

    ::: Ben
    ::: My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4
    ::: and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much
    ::: faster than X in RedHat. The applications takes a bit longer to
    ::: load under linux as compared to in NT. I use 160MB swap space for
    ::: linux. What seems to be the problem? Why is there a difference in
    ::: performance? And sometimes Netscape closes by itself under my linux
    ::: X. Any suggestions for improving performance?

    Sounds like you are using KDE or Gnome. That's probably what's driving
    you into swapping. Don't use them, and I'd expect you could start a web
    browser and news client without using the swap (just barely). Right now
    on a 500mhz 128mb redhat system on my desktop, X is taking 20mb
    (including both the server and window manager), the web browser 30mb,
    and the rest is down in the noise -- another few mb all told.
    This should all fit comfortably in 80mb.

    : "nl"
    : Don't use Linux on desktop at all. I tried to get a browser and
    : mail/newsreader to work at bearable speed but finally gave up and and
    : started to use Win2000.

    I've been using linux for some time, and I get better performance
    on my redhat linux boxes (using a barebones wm, mozilla firebird,
    and tcl/tk based news and email) than with ie on xp
    on identical 500mhz 128mb hardware.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

+ Reply to Thread