On 8 May 2002, Doug McGarrett wrote:
I find that the new SuSE 8.0 is so slow as to be unuseable.
On what kind of machine? You are the first person I know that has said that SuSE 8.0 is (much) slower than previous releases. What's slow? KDE? Then blame the KDE folks. YaST2? Well, no, it's much faster than the previous YaST2. What's so slow?
Either they left a lot of debug code in it, or I don't know why.
No, the SuSE developers definitely didn't compile everything with "-g". Besides, that mostly hurts file size and memory, not so much performance (AFAIK).
SuSE 7.1 was useable, but this is ridiculous.
What were you using in SuSE 7.1? KDE 2.2.x or 2.1.x? KDE releases tend to get slow over age with not enough RAM.
Maybe it only works well on 1 GHz machines. But they say you can run it on a 486. Yeah. If you will wait for next week to get the prompt back.
Well, I have a (heavily modified) SUSE 7.2 running on a 233MHz system with 96MiB of RAM. By today's standards, this machine is junk, but it runs the following, at the same time, very nicely: - Samba server; fast enough to burn CDs at 16X over the network - DHCP server - Unreal Tournament server - XFree86 w/ KDE Of course, all this on a 486 is too much. Just a samba server on a 486 is pushing it. AFAIK, UNIXes tend to be happy with lots of RAM. In all, it makes no sense for SuSE to cater to the extreme-low- end server / workstation. The percentage of market share of those users is even lower than those of the extreme-high-end servers / workstations (e.g., SuSE and x86-64, Enterprise Server offerings, SPARC versions of SuSE, etc.). As a person whose only computer has 32MiB of RAM, I share your pain. That's why I use Windows 95 as my primary operating system. Everything has its place. You might want to look into Debian or Slackware. -- Karol Pietrzak PGP KeyID: 3A1446A0