![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/574b21e13030b98c073938c6faa52781.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Luca Botti wrote:
Just my opinion, but out of the box the 9.2 is much better than 9.1. ).1 was slow up unitl version 2.6.x-105 was released (for i386). Version 9.2 is much better for performance (i am a j2ee developer on linux, so i can se performance gains...)
Also, all the acpi related stuff worked out of the box on my aging Latitude c840, apart of course, from the non acpi aware nvidia linux drivers.
So, acutally, i can say that form 8.0 on, 9.2 is the bes out of the box.
[snip] My experience too, both on main PC and a laptop. 9.2 is the best for me for a while. In addition, SuSE now has a score of small touches here and there - like very good anti-aliaising for fonts, and more and more functionality in YaST. To this we can add the excellent packman site and apt-get for SuSE. Individually these may not be much but they soon add up to a much better experience for me, a desktop/workstation user first and a server user second. Using Debian recently, I really noticed how bare and plain-vanilla Debian Sarge's desktop is by comparision to 9.2. There are simply no user-friendly touches at all because, it would seem, no one is pulling a Debian desktop together in the way that SuSE is (they are doing Debian-based desktops, like Ubuntu, instead). Creating a first-class desktop/work station probably takes a huge amount of work. It needs so many subtle touches and can't be done in a day. :) Fish