I take your point, and others have mentioned the same, but coming new to Linux KDE looks similar to Windows 98, Windowmaker does not. That is the basis of my comment. It also seems that others on similar machines do not suffer the same slow down. I am going to stick around here (if you can bear it :)) because in the last few days I have learnt a lot more than a couple of months in other groups. Just as one quick example, I was pointed to emeflm, a much quicker filemanager than anything else I have seen so far. Regards, David On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:03:10 -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
->With Win 98se on that machine it runs reasonably, but compared to ->Linux it flies. I have tried the settings with hdparm but they do not ->improve it at all. I would not install it on my main machine becausei ->of this performance hit. Win 98 runs well on it.
I'm not going to comment on the rest..but I will comment on this. You should never, ever compare Windows 98 to any recent version of Linux. It's more comparable to Windows2000 or Solaris. Windows98 is much less resource intensive...the days of the tagline " Linux breaths new life into old PC's" is over...and as it should be. With KDE2 and many of the other things that people run under Linux these days why would anyone believe it would run well on a 233mhz machine. It's a modern OS that does a lot ..and hardware is cheap. SuSE 7.3 beats the pants of Windows 2000 as far as my machines at work are concerned. They are both Compaq Deskpro's ...800mhz, TNT2 Ultra cards, 384M of ram..etc..etc. Win2k is much slower...Windows98 isn't in the same class as Linux or W2k. I would compare Windows98 to Linux in 1998 runing WindowMaker, Blackbox or another lighter window manager. Not to KDE2 and any newer distribution.
-----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal" -AE