RE: [SLE] I went from XP to SuSE, but Win was faster!!!!!!!!
I think X-windows memory requirement is higher than windows GUI. It's understandable, that X have client-server architecture, while windows is not. Of course this make X has drawbacks beside the advantages. So, if you prefer comparing linux and windows, try with sufficient memory for X, ie, 512 mb, then test run your application on that system. Another thing, we can not compare 2 system based on their fresh-install performance only. It's been found in many places, where linux almost never be reinstalled due to problems like hangs, dr watson, etc. It's also found in many places where linux box almost never shutdown, or even they don't have monitor at console. Some of my clients shutdown their linux only 1 day in 1 year. -istiqfar. -----Original Message----- From: Örn Hansen [mailto:orn.hansen@swipnet.se] Sent: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:32 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] I went from XP to SuSE, but Win was faster!!!!!!!! tisdag 16 mars 2004 09:02 skrev Silviu Marin-Caea:
Scott Wrobel wrote:
I bet this subject will turn some heads ;)
Hopefully you're not trolling.
He is ... windows xp, with 128M of memory ... doesn't have time for anything except swapping for the first 5-10 minutes while it starts up.
Do this: hdparm /dev/hda
It's very important the DMA acces is on (1)
/dev/hda: multcount = 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq = 1 (on) using_dma = 1 (on)
To optimize disk access you could use this:
hdparm -c1d1u1W1 /dev/hda
If you see improvement, put it in /etc/init.d/boot.local
And read man hdparm so you understand hdparm.
You could try hdparm -t /dev/hda before and after.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
* Istiqfar
I think X-windows memory requirement is higher than windows GUI. It's understandable, that X have client-server architecture, while windows is not. Of course this make X has drawbacks beside the advantages. So, if you prefer comparing linux and windows, try with sufficient memory for X, ie, 512 mb,
That's not X, that's your Window Manager or Desktop Environment. I can run X (with windowmaker) very comfortably on a toshiba satelite laptop (233Mhz 64M ram, suse 8.X) . On a gateway solo laptop (600Mhz, 192M ram) Suse 9 w/ KDE is snappier then XP (esp. on startup). 128M ram is indeed not enough if you are running a full featured linux box with KDE (though with KDE 3.2 things have improved) , which I guess was your original point.
problems like hangs, dr watson, etc. It's also found in many places where linux box almost never shutdown, or even they don't have monitor at console. Some of my clients shutdown their linux only 1 day in 1 year.
We used to have our secondary DNS server run on a Pentium box with a 133Mhz CPU , 540M harddrive and 16M memory (suse 7.3 based) without problems. The only reason we upgraded that box was that the harddrive was starting to amke weird noises, and we had another spare box that was easier to reinstall everything ont he new one than to bother finding a replacement drive for the old one.
tisdag 16 mars 2004 10:15 skrev Istiqfar:
I think X-windows memory requirement is higher than windows GUI. It's understandable, that X have client-server architecture, while windows is not. Of course this make X has drawbacks beside the advantages. So, if you prefer comparing linux and windows, try with sufficient memory for X, ie, 512 mb, then test run your application on that system. Another thing, we can not compare 2 system based on their fresh-install performance only. It's been found in many places, where linux almost never be reinstalled due to problems like hangs, dr watson, etc. It's also found in many places where linux box almost never shutdown, or even they don't have monitor at console. Some of my clients shutdown their linux only 1 day in 1 year.
Windows XP has a minimum requirement of 256Mb of ram. 512Mb recommended. X Windows has no real memory requirements, it's so minimal that 128Mb would be quite sufficient. On the other hand, nobody is running X windows alone. Everyone is running either the gnome desktop, or KDE desktop. These two desktop architectures have quite a lot of memory requirements, but they have very little relations beyond the Xlib. There are some benefits on Windows, as you say, it's not a server-client architecture and therefore games will usually be faster. On the other hand, X has an advantage that hasn't been utilized. It has the possibility of a uniform desktop. It's got everything ready, to be able to run a program on a different machine, while it will appear as if it were running on your own desktop. Unfortunately, that's not being utilized because too many people are trying to copy what Windows is doing, instead of going beyond.
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 02:00, Örn Hansen wrote:
tisdag 16 mars 2004 10:15 skrev Istiqfar:
I think X-windows memory requirement is higher than windows GUI. ... [ clipped ]
Windows XP has a minimum requirement of 256Mb of ram. 512Mb recommended.
X Windows has no real memory requirements, it's so minimal that 128Mb would be quite sufficient. On the other hand, nobody is running X windows alone. Everyone is running either the gnome desktop, or KDE desktop. ah, but some of us run FVWM :-) These two desktop architectures have quite a lot of memory requirements, but they have very little relations beyond the Xlib.
There are some benefits on Windows, as you say, it's not a server-client architecture and therefore games will usually be faster. On the other hand, X has an advantage that hasn't been utilized. It has the possibility of a uniform desktop. It's got everything ready, to be able to run a program on a different machine, while it will appear as if it were running on your own desktop. Unfortunately, that's not being utilized because too many people are trying to copy what Windows is doing, instead of going beyond.
Sometimes I fear that to many of the experts spent too much time in Unix, and they didn't know about some nice things that happened in the CP/M and Amiga worlds. Yes, Linux can do better than windows, and some desktop users are pulling for you experts. Stanley Long, PE Consulting Electrical Engineer Anchorage, Alaska (a windowless office, with a good view :-))
participants (4)
-
Gerhard den Hollander -
Istiqfar -
Stanley Long -
Örn Hansen