Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11

    I have just made the switch from SuSE to Gentoo.... and to be honest, i cant notice much difference in speed....

    It may be because i dont have an ideal set of USE flags in gentoo for compiling etc, but at the sorts of speeds processors are running now, speed differences are measured in miliseconds probably!
    "I am not an alcoholic, alcoholics go to meetings"
    Registered Linux user = #372327

  2. #12
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Canada, eh
    I've also noticed that the newer distro's often seem to consume an immense amount of resources. For sure Redhat 9 is a bit of a dog, i never figured out quite why though. I'm running Debian Sarge now with GNOME and it runs way faster than RH9 ever did on the same machine. (Athlon XP1800+ 512MB DDR333 WD HD w/ 8MB cache)

    BTW I think this was a really good thread - Streamlining Linux for performance is a topic i would love to learn more about .
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  3. #13
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Brooklyn, NY
    It is not about the distribution. Once again all distributions use the same software and the same kernel, it’s a matter of some basic scripts that the developers throw on top of it, which does not make a big difference.

    Red Hat is no slower then Debian, SuSE is no slower then Slackware, etc.. What do you expect using SuSE which supposedly detects all your hardware, all it does is enables all the modules on the kernel… you can do that on any other distribution out there and make the system just as slow. You can disable all the dbus and hal and whatever other services on any distribution and make it faster or you can enable all of them and make it slower.

    Its not about Linux needing more resources, its about the developers making it easier for users by enabling everything so the user would not have to configure his system to bare bones for the exact stuff that he needs and nothing extra. I do not see how you expect to install operating system that is aimed to be easy to use and expect it to perform right out of the box.

  4. $spacer_open
  5. #14
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Beaverton, OR
    One of the main reasons I install the very basic install of an OS and build up, is so I can have the snapiest system I can.

    In the case of FreeBSD, I install nothing, the install as I need things.

    This also saves disc space. i usually don't have much on my BSD boxen, as I use spare hardware.

  6. #15
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    The nice thing is you have the option to switch to a lighter desktop environment. Both KDE and gnome need some resources to run well.

  7. #16
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2005
    I too would do minimal installs for FreeBSD. On Fedora Core, installing more than a minimal system is almot unavoidable, but that's just because I'm too lazy to do it (FreeBSD seems to make it so easy, for some reason).

    Anyway, I don't think linux itself has gotten slower. I have an old laptop, and I'm sure it runs linux just as well as it ever did, but I think the problem lies with what programs are being run. RedHat/Fedora I notice runs a lot of services that you would never see loaded in a default FreeBSD install.

    I tried installing Ubuntu on my old laptop (120mhz pentium with 40mb or RAM), and the installer itself was unbearably slow even just between making menu selections; it was obvious the installer was doing something, but I wasn't sure what. As a programmer, it seems to me that the program was doing something extra I wasn't seeing, and that a lot of instructions were being run. It could just be laziness on the part of the programmers, but you can just tell that efficiency was not a consideration in the install system.

    When it comes to resources, you either have too little or too many. When programmers write programs, they assume you have so much. As time goes by, their assumptions get bigger and bigger, and the development of the software reflects that. Heavy distros are designed with more powerful machines in mind, and they know how to ask for the resources.

    I noticed slowdown on my laptop (to a horrendous degree), and I blamed it almost entirely on the desktop environments. Current versions of GNOME and KDE are simply too much for my poor little laptop--they load and execute an exponentially larger amount of code than they used to. However, even that ancient machine was quite snappy when running Windowmaker (a no-nonsense window manager), and I'm sure fluxbox would have been very nice on that system too. The system was as fast as could be expected from an original 586; I was able to play Doom 2 on it at full speed no problem.

    What do I make of all this? It kind of shows that the typical linux system is improving. Why do I say that? What I mean is that it's doing MORE. It's getting more features, more flexibility, more functionally, more...stuff. I think this contributes to overall robustness and progression in technology, but it is definitely more taxing on the system. There's always a tradeoff. I like linux because of all the stuff it does, and I'm always pleased by new features and extensions to my favorite desktop environments, web browser, etc. It all has a place on my desktop. As for my laptop, that's a place for linux too, but linux minus the heavy software.

    Let's face it, DOS is fast. Wow. There's nothing faster or more responsive. However, what can you do with DOS? That's an extreme example. Arguably, Windows 95 offered a lot more functionality, and subsequently its programs were noticeably slower on the same hardware. A few years later, 98 came out, and it loaded MUCH more slowly. On our old machines, it was easy to notice the difference because the machines were slow enough to amplify the speed effect that additions made to the software made. Keep going through to Windows 2000 and XP and you'll see the same thing. Now, few would argue that Windows NT/2000/XP is about as good as Windows gets.

    With linux you're witnessing the same thing.

  8. #17
    Linux User benjamin20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    jacksonville beach FL
    its probobly slow because of the extra dodoggles that are attached to it. but it could also be the hard drive. for me, i used to use fc2. the main reason i switched to gentoo was the contrlol and the fact that fc2 didnt like to compile things from source. i thought it would be a lot faster, and it was to an extent but realy when i find something is lagging its because of hardrive access time. if you feel that it is infact the os that it slow than remember that the super cool advantege to linux is the almost uneccisary modularity. you can deactivate a bunch of system proccesses and have a better time. i know that fc2 gave you a bunch of uneccisary proccesses but with gentoo you had to ad your own (bth had advantages to there methods, but both had there dissadvantages. fc2 started off slow and gentoo started off stupid) if you try something like damsmalllinux or vector than those come desightned for speed and compactness. so they start of super fast, but also very very stupid.
    nVidia G-Force 6600GT (bfg) pci-e: amd 64 2000+ (939): 1024 corsair ram: 2X 80gb seagate harddisk SATA: plextor cd/dvd-read/write cdrom SATA

  9. #18
    Just Joined! starrats's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Kent, OH

    Re: Remembering the old days

    Quote Originally Posted by duster
    I remember using redhat linux 7.0 on my old laptop and desktops with very low memory and slow cpu speeds and the operating system was very responsive . Now i have a laptop with 512 meg of ram with 1.7 mhz cpu with a standard linux installation and sometimes the system crawls. Is it me or do you all think that linux is now requiring alot of system resources like windows? Let me know what you all think. Thanks
    Well, I use both FC3 and Slackware 10.1, and I find, so far, really no difference in either one.
    I have an older computer w/256 ram stick, a 1GHz processor, and a 30Gig HD.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts