Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
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 ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    177

    Remembering the old days


    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

  2. #2
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Well, the way a system "feels" or "responds" is kind of subjective. People have long told me how they consider SuSE to be the "slowest" responding distro and praise Gentoo or Slackware as being "more responsive" but I think it's all in their heads. I've never been able to tell any difference with what I do.

    What distros have you tried that don't run well on a 1.7gHz machine?
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    Well, the way a system "feels" or "responds" is kind of subjective. People have long told me how they consider SuSE to be the "slowest" responding distro and praise Gentoo or Slackware as being "more responsive" but I think it's all in their heads. I've never been able to tell any difference with what I do.

    What distros have you tried that don't run well on a 1.7gHz machine?
    Redhat 9.0, Suse 9.2 and now im using Fed 3

  4. #4
    Linux Guru Flatline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,204
    I've never been able to tell any difference with what I do.
    Maybe that's because your machine is so fast it actually anticipates what you're going to do next.

    Ahh, jealousy...
    There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.

    - Jeremy S. Anderson

  5. #5
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by duster
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    What distros have you tried that don't run well on a 1.7gHz machine?
    Redhat 9.0, Suse 9.2 and now im using Fed 3
    Yeah, I think that about sums up my point. I've used all three of those (currently using 9.2 on my main machine) on a sub-2gHz machine with the same amount of RAM and noticed no lag whatsoever. *shrug* Apparently it's subjective.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  6. #6
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    575

    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
    I doubt that Linux itself requires a lot of resources.Applications
    on top of Linux perhaps.
    When the system crawls run the top command to see which
    applications hog the cpu.

  7. #7
    Linux Guru budman7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knee deep in Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    3,242
    I tried to install SuSE 9.1 personal on a pc with only 128 MB ram, and I was told I couldn't do it, 256 was minimum. That to me is excessive.
    But ,SuSE 9.2 on my machine now is really fast.
    Kde 3.3
    2.8 Ghz Celeron proc
    1 gig ram

    And I love it.
    How to know if you are a geek.
    when you respond to "get a life!" with "what's the URL?"
    - Birger

    New users read The FAQ

  8. #8
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Where my hat is
    Posts
    766
    I tried SuSE 9.2 on my PIII/450, 196 MB RAM. KDE brought the machine to its knees on a fairly regular basis. Should have dumped KDE and tried IceWM then, but didn't really know anything about it. Since loading Vector Linux and dumping KDE, I'm very pleased with the performance.
    Registered Linux user #384279
    Vector Linux SOHO 7

  9. #9
    Linux Guru AlexK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,379
    I know what you mean about linux being slower these days. But it is still much faster than my Win XP install on the same machine.

    I have a friend who uses MDK 10.1 on a Pentium 166 laptop and he has no problems whatsoever with it as he has a 600 MB swap space.

    Oh, for the good old days when you could run the latest OS on a Pentium MMX with 32 MB RAM free of any influence from Redmond

  10. #10
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Speed School of Engineering
    Posts
    267

    Re: Remembering the old days

    Quote Originally Posted by duster
    ... with 1.7 mhz cpu ...
    Wow... That's some crazy fast linux if its running on that

    As far as speed/resources go, I use SuSE on my destop: 3.2GHz, 1g ram, and it runs very fast (Though I don't notice much difference between that and a ~1.5GHz laptop I've been using for the last week, also SuSE). The only time it is slow is when booting up, but I don't have to do that very often On that note, I've heard something about disabling swap to speed up linux, is this true, and if so, how do you do it?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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