Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4020 mails)

[BandiPat <penguin0601@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 01 October 2004 05:14 am, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
> Thank you for your notice,
> I want to add some comments:
>
> 1- My Linux setup and boot are on default settings (In
> fact, I am not so foolish to add unused services to
> the boot progress!)
>
> 2- In Windows OSs, I've installed a few programs and
> updates, but I accept that its boot time becomes slow
> and slower when you install more programs, though, the
> worsts are those who add startup items.
[...]
> 6- My intention is not hiding the great advantages of
> linux systems, such as: no need for restart, being
> open-source and many more; I wish its desktop would be
> faster.
>
> 7- The file system used here is ext3.
>
> 8- How much features do you think SuSE have that is
> worth putting your hand under your chin for several
> seconds after any click?
>
> 9- Is Mandrake Linux better in performance?
>
> Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad@xxxxxxxxx),
> Tehran, Iran.
***************

Bahram,
I'll just make a few comments about this and ask that you move it to the 
OT list please.  Not really solving SuSE problems talking about things 
you don't seem to understand.  Of if you do understand them better, you 
are just trolling to create a stir.  Either way, move this to OT 
please.

First of all, you are not comparing apples to apples and maybe if you 
understood what you were talking about more, you could do so or if you 
do, but decided not to point out the facts, you are trying to be 
deceptive as well.  It's certainly another of those deceptive practices 
MS does to draw folks in or create useless discussions such as 
this.  :o)

1.  Windows, no matter what flavor, preloads most of what it needs to 
run at bootup into ram, therefore appearing to load things faster.  
Windows bootup time in itself is decieving, since it is programed to 
load the windows first then process the init stuff later.  That's why 
even after you see the desktop, it's not ready to use for several 
seconds later.  If you were to compare "actual" times, you would see 
Windows doesn't fully load for several seconds, even minutes before 
becoming fully usable.  Same thing with other programs, Windows loads 
the windows first, the rest later thus because the windows open first, 
you get the "feeling" they're loading faster.  The actual load times, I 
think you would find to be comparable to or slower to a good Linux 
setup.

2.  Knoppix feels faster simply because of the fact it's running from a 
ram disk when started.  Try loading something from the cd that's not 
loaded into ram and tell us what times you get.  I suspect you'll find 
load times to be different from a cd.

3.  KDE does things differently, actually not only KDE, in that it loads 
all the processes first then the window appears.  This, of course, 
makes it appear slower in loading when it's actually equal to or faster 
than what you see in Windows.  Of course, when you see the window 
appear in Linux apps they are ready for use!  This is how KDE operates, 
no matter what distro it sets on, so MDK, Slackware, Debian are all 
going to "feel" about the same.  


Try it yourself by checking the performance settings on Konqueror.  Set 
it to preload just one process into memory!  It loads almost 
instantaneous for me and it's ready to use right then!  Unlike Windows, 
where even preloaded it still has to start other things well after the 
window appears to be ready to use.

Lee

-- 
--- KMail v1.7 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 ---
      Registered Linux User #225206
  Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane, 
   by Those Who Cannot Hear the Music!