On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:03:29 -0200 Adagilson B B da Silva wrote:

I have a K6-II 500 mhz, 256MB RAM, HD 40GB. It works fine with Win ME and even with Win XP (the two other OS I have installed in my computer) and they run fast as it could be, saved the limits of this kind of configuration. But with linux everything seems slow. Why? a.

Probably because you are using a bloated desktop manager like kde or gnome. You will see a great improvement is responsiveness if you switch to fvwm2 or something like blackbox. -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation

On Friday 08 November 2002 03:03, Adagilson B B da Silva wrote:

I have a K6-II 500 mhz, 256MB RAM, HD 40GB. It works fine with Win ME and even with Win XP (the two other OS I have installed in my computer) and they run fast as it could be, saved the limits of this kind of configuration. But with linux everything seems slow. Why? a.

Presuming for the moment this is not a troll to get people hot-n-bothered, I have to ask: in what way do things seem "slow"? I'm running a 466 processor myself w/512mb of memory and IDE /66 and /100 drives (on a /66 controller, so I know I'm not getting "the most" out of a couple of the drives...) The system *seems* as fast to me under SuSE 8.1 as it did under win98/se, with one notable exception: the video card I have, a radeon 9000, is "too new" -- there aren't any 3D drivers for this card under linux. However, all that means is that I can't play "first person shooters" on this system -- I'd use my laptop for that anyway [faster processor ;) ] One thing that is NOTICABLY faster under linux than it is under windows is the "startup time" for a graphical login! Maybe this is only psychological, but "under windows", after I log in I have to wait a significant amount of time before I can actually access any icons/menu items. Under linux, the KDE "startup" animation runs through a few steps BEFORE it displays my actual desktop/icons/menus, but once displayed, I can access them immediately. Unfortunately, comparing linux to windows is not an "apples to apples" comparison, even when we're talking about the same physical machine. There are several "minor variables" that can affect performance. Individually, they might not make much difference, but added up the difference becomes "noticable" First off, there is the file system and partitioning: here is where windows (usually) takes an unfair advantage. Since windows likes to be installed "first", it tends to take the first partition and/or "outer tracks" of the hard drive. During the boot/startup process, since the heads are already at the outer tracks, there is less track-to-track movement as files and programs are opened. Linux is usually relegated to some later partition/inner tracks, so the heads have to traverse (often large) numbers of tracks of the "windows" partition between the MBR sectors/partition table and the actual "tracks of interest". [yes, that's a very tiny difference since track-to-track traversal is often less than 10 MILLISECONDS, but "it adds up" -- if the windows partition is, say, 50 "tracks", it takes a full second to go from "where you are" to the outermost track, read a bit of data, then return back to "where you were" -- do that a few dozen times during "startup" and you'll add a noticable wait...] OTOH, Linux can make up for this "unfair advantage" by using a "faster" file system. This can easily get into some rather esoteric discussion comparing clusters & (v)FAT tables to inodes and the like, and throw in the fact you have a CHOICE of actual file systems to use, not to mention multi-spindle "raid", and the linux side of the fence is a bit too complex to describe in this message, so I'll reiterate the point: even with the "linux" portion of the filesystem relegated to "inner" tracks, you *can* have as-fast-or-faster access to the drive under linux. Someone mentioned "32-bit DMA access". Under windows, you would go into the "hardware manager" and find a check-box to enable it on a drive-by-drive basis, but this is only an "on/off" switch. Under linux, there *may* be an "as-easy-to-use" on/off switch in the setup/configuration programs, but I haven't found it [to be honest, I haven't looked :)] "at the command line", however, there is a program called "hdparm" that is used to control the drive(s). As root, the command hdparm -i /dev/hda returns some interesting (and not so interesting) data about the first hard drive, including things like what PIO/DMA/UDMA modes it supports (and which one is selected!) The command hdparm -t /dev/hda does an actual throughput TEST (non destructive, so it should be safe to use at any time). Note, however, if your system is "otherwise busy" when you perform a test it may show less-than-stellar results. :) Note also there are UPPER CASE versions of the -i and -t switches. For -I, hdparm formats the info in a more "human readable" manner, while -T tests the throughput of the INTERFACE CARD (i.e., "cached" reads, about 4-5 times faster in my system) Then of course there is the matter of the "software" -- it's a fairly safe bet that most people have no idea as to what actual programs or processes are started under either windows or linux [I'm not being unkind -- *most* people don't "need to know" this information] Under windows, there are some "system tools" that will show you what processes are started & running, under linux systems the program that shows this is "ps". learning to use these tools (on either system) is a very enlightening process :) Generally, under linux, you'll start more "server" based processes (such as an e-mail server, usually either sendmail or postfix) while under windows you run things like "anti-virus" tools and "find fast" to slow the system down :) So, with all this in mind, I'll ask again, exactly HOW does the system "seem slower" under linux than under windows? Tom