How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2? - SUN

This is a discussion on How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2? - SUN ; Hi folks, I've got an Ultra 2 with dual 400 MHz processors and 1280 MB RAM. Currently it runs Solaris 9 and I use it for web design and day-to-day stuff like browsing the web. I have a lot of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

  1. How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Hi folks,

    I've got an Ultra 2 with dual 400 MHz processors and 1280 MB RAM.
    Currently it runs Solaris 9 and I use it for web design and day-to-day
    stuff like browsing the web. I have a lot of Blastwave software
    packages installed. I've resisted upgrading the Blastwave packages for
    a while because the last time I upgraded I was disappointed at how much
    the machine slowed down. GIMP 2.0, for example, was much slower than
    GIMP 1.2. So much slower that I tracked down an old version of GIMP 1.2
    and re-installed it. But that was when I had dual 300 MHz processors
    rather than dual 400 MHz. I reckon the faster processors probably give
    me 25-30% better performance. Does anyone here have an opinion on
    whether this machine will be adequate for running Solaris 10 and GIMP
    2.0, etc? I am starting to notice that a few things are getting
    out-of-date and am thinking that perhaps I should upgrade.

    Suggestions would be appreciated.

    Best wishes,

    Chris Tidy


  2. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > Does anyone here have an opinion on
    > whether this machine will be adequate for running Solaris 10 and GIMP
    > 2.0, etc? I am starting to notice that a few things are getting
    > out-of-date and am thinking that perhaps I should upgrade.


    I don't think Solaris 10 is any slower than 9 as an OS. *But* the
    whole GNOME desktop is inevitably a horror - this stuff is developed by
    18 year olds with 3GHz dual-core machines with 8GB of memory,
    water-cooled graphics cards but only very tiny brains. I find it all
    pretty much unusable on ~500MHz single-core SPARC boxes, though a dual
    400MHz box might be significantly better (Ultra 2s were good machines,
    I have a pair of similarly configured ones!)

    --tim


  3. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On 2007-01-19, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
    > Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >> Does anyone here have an opinion on
    >> whether this machine will be adequate for running Solaris 10 and GIMP
    >> 2.0, etc? I am starting to notice that a few things are getting
    >> out-of-date and am thinking that perhaps I should upgrade.

    >
    > I don't think Solaris 10 is any slower than 9 as an OS. *But* the
    > whole GNOME desktop is inevitably a horror - this stuff is developed by
    > 18 year olds with 3GHz dual-core machines with 8GB of memory,
    > water-cooled graphics cards but only very tiny brains.


    *applause*

    > I find it all
    > pretty much unusable on ~500MHz single-core SPARC boxes, though a dual
    > 400MHz box might be significantly better (Ultra 2s were good machines,


    I run it on a twin-450MHz processor U60, and it's just barely tolerable. It's
    interesting how much faster just-plain-X applications start up than the
    Gnome equivalents.

    But then, I liked CDE about as much as gouging my eyes out with red hot
    spoons, and Openview (which I loved) is no longer properly supported.


    --
    http://www.strike-the-root.com/
    [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

  4. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Developers should always have the slowest systems on their
    desktop. The compile systems may be fast, but not their desktop :-)

  5. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Thanks for all the advice.



    > > I find it all
    > > pretty much unusable on ~500MHz single-core SPARC boxes, though a dual
    > > 400MHz box might be significantly better (Ultra 2s were good machines,

    >
    > I run it on a twin-450MHz processor U60, and it's just barely tolerable. It's
    > interesting how much faster just-plain-X applications start up than the
    > Gnome equivalents.
    >
    > But then, I liked CDE about as much as gouging my eyes out with red hot
    > spoons, and Openview (which I loved) is no longer properly supported.


    I know GNOME is slower, but I like it more than CDE. CDE is just too
    basic for my taste. I run GNOME 2.0 with the "Crux" window theme at the
    moment, and that's ideally what I'd like to run under Solaris 10. Is it
    possible?

    Many thanks,

    Chris


  6. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:

    > I know GNOME is slower, but I like it more than CDE. CDE is just too
    > basic for my taste. I run GNOME 2.0 with the "Crux" window theme at the
    > moment, and that's ideally what I'd like to run under Solaris 10. Is it
    > possible?


    I would say that for the use, Solaris 10 has better performance
    than Solaris 9. So, for your intended use of GNOME, the same
    version of GNOME should be faster on S10 than on S9.

    HTH,

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

    President,
    Rite Online Inc.

    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

  7. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Rich Teer wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >
    > > I know GNOME is slower, but I like it more than CDE. CDE is just too
    > > basic for my taste. I run GNOME 2.0 with the "Crux" window theme at the
    > > moment, and that's ideally what I'd like to run under Solaris 10. Is it
    > > possible?

    >
    > I would say that for the use, Solaris 10 has better performance
    > than Solaris 9. So, for your intended use of GNOME, the same
    > version of GNOME should be faster on S10 than on S9.


    Cheers, Rich. I am definitely leaning towards Solaris 10.

    Think I'll buy the 5 CD version from Sun and install on two 36 GB
    Fujitsu disks.

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  8. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Rich Teer wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >
    > > I know GNOME is slower, but I like it more than CDE. CDE is just too
    > > basic for my taste. I run GNOME 2.0 with the "Crux" window theme at the
    > > moment, and that's ideally what I'd like to run under Solaris 10. Is it
    > > possible?

    >
    > I would say that for the use, Solaris 10 has better performance
    > than Solaris 9. So, for your intended use of GNOME, the same
    > version of GNOME should be faster on S10 than on S9.


    By the way, what version of GNOME comes with Solaris 10 as the default?

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  9. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:

    > By the way, what version of GNOME comes with Solaris 10 as the default?


    I *think* it's GNOME 2.6, or some variation thereof*. The current
    Solaris Express (based on build 54 of Nevada) comes with GNOME 2.16.

    * It's been a while since I last logged into a vanilla S10 box.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

    President,
    Rite Online Inc.

    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

  10. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Rich Teer wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >
    > > By the way, what version of GNOME comes with Solaris 10 as the default?

    >
    > I *think* it's GNOME 2.6, or some variation thereof*. The current
    > Solaris Express (based on build 54 of Nevada) comes with GNOME 2.16.
    >
    > * It's been a while since I last logged into a vanilla S10 box.


    Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it be
    to replace it with GNOME 2.0?

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  11. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:

    > Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it be
    > to replace it with GNOME 2.0?


    Apart from pkgrm'ing Sun's GNOME packages and building your own
    GNOME 2.0 from source, I've no idea! But I wouldn't expect
    much of a speed change by doing that; if 2.6 is a dog, odds are
    2.0 will be too.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

    President,
    Rite Online Inc.

    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

  12. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:47:56 GMT
    Rich Teer wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >
    > > Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it
    > > be to replace it with GNOME 2.0?

    >
    > Apart from pkgrm'ing Sun's GNOME packages and building your own
    > GNOME 2.0 from source, I've no idea! But I wouldn't expect
    > much of a speed change by doing that; if 2.6 is a dog, odds are
    > 2.0 will be too.


    IIRC, it was GNOME 2.2 or 2.4 that introduced anti-aliased font
    support. The large reduction in character screen painting and
    application start-up stems from that.

    I remember Sun's GNOME 2.0 on my Ultra 60 to be very fast, though the
    fonts were ugly on my LCD compared to the 20E20 CRT.

    --
    Stefaan A Eeckels
    --
    People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather
    have one good soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts.
    --Leavitt

  13. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:47:56 GMT
    > Rich Teer wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > >
    > > > Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it
    > > > be to replace it with GNOME 2.0?

    > >
    > > Apart from pkgrm'ing Sun's GNOME packages and building your own
    > > GNOME 2.0 from source, I've no idea! But I wouldn't expect
    > > much of a speed change by doing that; if 2.6 is a dog, odds are
    > > 2.0 will be too.

    >
    > IIRC, it was GNOME 2.2 or 2.4 that introduced anti-aliased font
    > support. The large reduction in character screen painting and
    > application start-up stems from that.
    >
    > I remember Sun's GNOME 2.0 on my Ultra 60 to be very fast, though the
    > fonts were ugly on my LCD compared to the 20E20 CRT.


    Is it possible to completely disable anti-aliasing? Easily? I use a CRT
    so I don't really need it.

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  14. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:47:56 GMT
    >> Rich Teer wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it
    >>>> be to replace it with GNOME 2.0?
    >>> Apart from pkgrm'ing Sun's GNOME packages and building your own
    >>> GNOME 2.0 from source, I've no idea! But I wouldn't expect
    >>> much of a speed change by doing that; if 2.6 is a dog, odds are
    >>> 2.0 will be too.

    >> IIRC, it was GNOME 2.2 or 2.4 that introduced anti-aliased font
    >> support. The large reduction in character screen painting and
    >> application start-up stems from that.
    >>
    >> I remember Sun's GNOME 2.0 on my Ultra 60 to be very fast, though the
    >> fonts were ugly on my LCD compared to the 20E20 CRT.

    >
    > Is it possible to completely disable anti-aliasing? Easily? I use a CRT
    > so I don't really need it.
    >
    > Best wishes,
    >
    > Chris
    >

    Go to Launch Icon

    Applications
    Utilities
    Configuration Editor

    From there follow directory structure to:

    /desktop/gnome/font_rendering/antialiasing

    Enter "None"


    Paul

  15. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Paul Gress wrote:
    > Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:47:56 GMT
    > >> Rich Teer wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Thanks. If GNOME 2.6 was too slow for my liking, how hard would it
    > >>>> be to replace it with GNOME 2.0?
    > >>> Apart from pkgrm'ing Sun's GNOME packages and building your own
    > >>> GNOME 2.0 from source, I've no idea! But I wouldn't expect
    > >>> much of a speed change by doing that; if 2.6 is a dog, odds are
    > >>> 2.0 will be too.
    > >> IIRC, it was GNOME 2.2 or 2.4 that introduced anti-aliased font
    > >> support. The large reduction in character screen painting and
    > >> application start-up stems from that.
    > >>
    > >> I remember Sun's GNOME 2.0 on my Ultra 60 to be very fast, though the
    > >> fonts were ugly on my LCD compared to the 20E20 CRT.

    > >
    > > Is it possible to completely disable anti-aliasing? Easily? I use a CRT
    > > so I don't really need it.
    > >
    > > Best wishes,
    > >
    > > Chris
    > >

    > Go to Launch Icon
    >
    > Applications
    > Utilities
    > Configuration Editor
    >
    > From there follow directory structure to:
    >
    > /desktop/gnome/font_rendering/antialiasing
    >
    > Enter "None"
    >
    >
    > Paul


    Thanks a lot Paul. I'll definitely switch it off.

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  16. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Thanks for the advice. Decision made. I'm upgrading to Solaris 10. I've
    ordered a media kit from Sun and two 36 GB Fujitsu hard drives. I'll
    switch anti-aliasing off but I want Gnome. I only really got keen on
    Unix when I discovered Gnome was available as well as CDE and FVWM!

    Best wishes,

    Chris


  17. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    On 2007-01-21, Christopher Tidy wrote:
    > Paul Gress wrote:



    >> Go to Launch Icon
    >>
    >> Applications
    >> Utilities
    >> Configuration Editor
    >>
    >> From there follow directory structure to:
    >>
    >> /desktop/gnome/font_rendering/antialiasing
    >>
    >> Enter "None"
    >>
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > Thanks a lot Paul. I'll definitely switch it off.


    Hmmm. I just tried it on my U60 (with Sun 19" CRT). It's horrid. I
    switched it back on immediately.


    --
    http://www.strike-the-root.com/
    [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

  18. Re: How much slower will Solaris 10 be on an Ultra 2?

    Huge wrote:



    > Hmmm. I just tried it on my U60 (with Sun 19" CRT). It's horrid. I
    > switched it back on immediately.


    While waiting for my media kit and hard drives, I installed Mozilla
    1.7.5 on Solaris 9. I'm running GNOME 2.0. Now all the fonts in Mozilla
    are anti-aliased. It's just personal opinion, but I hate the way they
    look on my Sun 20" CRT. Does anyone know how to disable anti-aliasing
    in Mozilla 1.7.5?

    Best wishes,

    Chris


+ Reply to Thread