See the text attachment (unix format). _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com I don't know how much effect it can have, I don't know how many times it has been commented, I don't know what can I do for an improvement, But I know... Working with a computer is not enjoyable when it responds slow! ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | TIMES TO RUN | | | | | | | IN | SuSE | RedHat | Windows | Windows | | | SECONDS | 9.1 | 9.0 | XP(SP1) | 98(se) | | | | | | | | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | boot before | | | | | | | login | | | | | | | | 62 | 54 | 22 | 20 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | boot after | (KDE 3.2) |(Gnome 2.2)| | | | | login | | | | | | | | 80 | 17 | 9 | 9 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | |(Konqueror)|(Nautilus) |(Explorer) |(Explorer) | | | file browser | | | | | | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | < 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | multi media |(Kaffeine) | |(M-Player) |(M-Player) | | | player | | n/a | | | | | | 12 | | 1 | 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | control | | | | | | | center/ | | | | | | | panel | 15 | 4 | 1 | < 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | | (YaST) | |(Computer | | | | management | | n/a |Management)| n/a | | | | 15 | | 2 | | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | add/remove | | | | | | | components | | | | | | | | 45 | 15 | 6 | 4 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | find file | | | | | | | | 12 | 1 | 1 | < 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | command | (Konsole) |(Terminal) |(DosPrompt)|(DosPrompt)| | | prompt | | | | | | | | 7 | 2 | 1 | < 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | | (Kwrite) | (Gedit) | (WordPad) | (WordPad) | | | text editor | | | | | | | | 15 | 3 | 1 | < 1 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | total | | | | | | | | 265 | > 97 | 45 | > 36 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| Also note: - I am shouting not because I hate linux, but because I hate negligences hurled at it so far! - I know many people will suggest me to have a fast xxxx MHz CPU: No, I suggest programmers to test their programs on an xxx MHz CPU to see what they have created! These are my computer specifications (I am not kidding): Ultra high speed CPU: AMD K6-2+ at 550 MHz, Extra high end GPU: nVIDIA RivaTNT 16MB PCI, Super high speed SDRAM: 512MB PC133, Seagate 120GB 7200rpm + Western Digital 120GB 8MB buffer Windows98-SE + WindowsXP-SP1a + RedHat-Linux-9.0 + Suse-Linux-9.1 (Already, I am using Mozilla browser 1.7.3 on Linux) Other system properties: Professional sound: Creative SB16 ISA, High bandwidth modem: Rockwell 33.6 ISA, High quality big monitor: 14" color monitor ----------------------------------- Have fun! Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad@yahoo.com), 9/26/2004, Tehran, Iran.
On Thursday 30 September 2004 15:24, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
Ok, though you may have a point on some of these, I do have a few comments: 1. What programs are started on the Windows boot vs the Linux boot? I've got windows '98 running on 3 computers here, but noway they boot in 20+9 seconds. You might want to have a look at the Linux bootsequence to see if you really need all those services (especially scanning for new hardware can take up quite a bit of time). 2. Did you take the reboot times into account every time you install anything on Windows (especially '98)? 3. Don't compare mplayer to Kaffeine. I use mplayer directly under Linux, and it reacts immediately, not after 12 seconds. 4. Which control center program did you use under Windows that come up in less than 1 sec? 5. What component did you add in 4 seconds under Windows '98? 6. 15 seconds for kwrite? That doesn't sound right. As said: you probably have a point that some tools take more time on Linux, though I'm not sure if all the comparisons you did were really comparable. Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
On 30/09/04 02:24 PM, Bahram Alinezhad <alineziad@yahoo.com> wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
Well this is utterly useless as a benchmark. What services are you running on the Linux boxes, the default ones start a number that only make sense on a server, and in some cases not at all. And why have you chosen the two heaviest and feature rich desktops, a more sensible benchmark would have been a windowmanager such as ICE which is closer to windows explorer functionality. As for YaST's opening speed, that is a fair point, but it is calling up a huge number of scripts to handle the system changes and it isnt a part of any desktop or windowmanager so it isnt reserving memory for itself when the desktop starts. If its that much grief use the curses based yast. For finding a file, are you querying one of the databases such as whereis for a location, or using find and searching from / ? For opening a command prompt, why not just press ctrl+alt+function1-6 for one of the VT's, or if you must open one under X, why not one that is similar to Command Prompt such as Xterm. As for Xp and 98, are they fully updated with antivirus and a firewall, not to mention all the other fun system tray lint windows picks up or are they fresh installs? Heres something you may not understand, Linux doesnt have native graphic functionality, instead thats provided by X and then windowmanagers and desktops are built ontop of that, this provides a vast amount of flexibility, including the ability to use X over a network, but TANSTAAFL, so certain things take longer. I'd imagine everyone here is happy to wait a few extra seconds for X to start. As for your accusation of negligence on the part of the programmers, I dont see any, only the limitations of the engineering and design; and the lack of certain JPEG exploits. And for your claim that people will say get a faster cpu, but it should be the programmers that optimise their programs for your system in their time. I say: A) Recompile the src rpms for you system or B) pay or ask someone to do A for you or C) Use a lightweight windowmanager/desktop such as XFCE4 or D) Accept that any system will have its negatives in addition to its positives or E) Use only what your happy with, which seems to be windows. Have Fun, Ben
On Thursday 30 September 2004 16:22, you wrote:
On 30/09/04 02:24 PM, Bahram Alinezhad <alineziad@yahoo.com> wrote:
As for your accusation of negligence on the part of the programmers, I dont see any, only the limitations of the engineering and design; and the lack of certain JPEG exploits.
There is definitely something wrong with KDE in Suse. Even the smallest apps open in 5 seconds. If I try the same in Knoppix (kernel 2.6, KDE 3.2) it takes 1 second, on the same hardware. Other non-KDE apps start in no time. I experienced the same behaviour on different PCs. If you search a little you will find many people complaining about this. Everybody at this point suggests to use a lighter WM. But the problem is not KDE, it is something with Suse! BTW I installed 9.1 on a friend's PC. XP didn't boot thereafter, Suse knows this can happen but their workaround didn't work for me (I managed to solve this problem, see my previous posting). After the installation the CD tray kept on opening by itself every 20 seconds. Heavy google session again (luky me it's free) other people have this problem, can be solved disabling Suseplugger, nobody knows why, seems to be kernel related. There are many more rough spots that needs to be solved.
On Thursday 30 September 2004 09:24, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
I have a dual boot Athlon x86-64 3200 used (in Windows) for high end gaming and the boot->login and login->desktop times are still unacceptably slow. When I get back to that box I'll run a few tests of my own, but I can say that subjectively those times appear about right for the hardware you're using. The only good news is that Linux is worth the wait ;-) Jeff
Bahram wrote regarding '[SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?' on Thu, Sep 30 at 08:25:
See the text attachment (unix format).
Did you just post a message *complaining about how inefficient something is* by: 1) composing a message in a seperate text editor 2) saving that message in a text file 3) starting a mail program 4) attaching the text file to a message 5) typing another message noting that there's an attachment 6) sending it all to a mailing list whose FAQ requests no attachments? Is the irony of this situation appearent? BTW, I run SuSE in my car, on a Cyrix 6x86 underclocked to 266MHz. It goes from power off to fully booted, playing mp3s and displaying the id3 info on a vacuum fluorescent display in 17 seconds. Linux is *not* the problem, running things you don't need is the problem. Turn off those extra services. And quit sending messages as attachments. --Danny
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:50:05 -0500 Danny Sauer <suse-linux-e.suselists@danny.teleologic.net> wrote: [...]
BTW, I run SuSE in my car, on a Cyrix 6x86 underclocked to 266MHz. It goes from power off to fully booted, playing mp3s and displaying the id3 info on a vacuum fluorescent display in 17 seconds.
Cool! But I could probably beat that using BeOS -- it boots in less than 10 seconds IIRC ;) Anyway, I should probably try your suggestions on this notebook I borrowed to make it faster than it is now... [...] -- - E - on SUSE 9.1 | blackbox 0.70b2 | Panasonic CF-L1 Buffalo WLI-PCM-L11GP | copperwalls was here ;) "Look! I am making all things new." - Revelation 21:5
- wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?' on Thu, Sep 30 at 13:05:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:50:05 -0500 Danny Sauer <suse-linux-e.suselists@danny.teleologic.net> wrote:
[...]
BTW, I run SuSE in my car, on a Cyrix 6x86 underclocked to 266MHz. It goes from power off to fully booted, playing mp3s and displaying the id3 info on a vacuum fluorescent display in 17 seconds.
Cool! But I could probably beat that using BeOS -- it boots in less than 10 seconds IIRC ;)
I dunno - about 10-12 seconds of that is BIOS setup. BeOS starts up fast, but a stripped-down linux with tuned init scripts can certainly hold its own. :) --Danny, who should use the past tense, since the hard drive in that machine has been unhappy of late (it only 2/3 boots...)
I dunno - about 10-12 seconds of that is BIOS setup. BeOS starts up fast, but a stripped-down linux with tuned init scripts can certainly hold its own. :)
I have BeOS pro 5.0, I think I've seen a 5 second boot for my record.
--Danny, who should use the past tense, since the hard drive in that machine has been unhappy of late (it only 2/3 boots...)
-- ---------------------------------- http://www.cannibalholocaust.net http://www.misfits.com http://www.onethirtyeight.net http://www.suse.com http://www.slackware.com http://www.linux.org http://www.linuxiso.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.freebsd.org http://www.bsd.org http://www.antionline.com
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?' on Thu, Sep 30 at 22:56:
I dunno - about 10-12 seconds of that is BIOS setup. BeOS starts up fast, but a stripped-down linux with tuned init scripts can certainly hold its own. :)
I have BeOS pro 5.0, I think I've seen a 5 second boot for my record.
You have a fast BIOS. :) I've run BeOS on several machines, but never noticed it booting much more quickly than Linux on the same machines. Now I'm gonna have to dig out those old install disks and play with it some more again. Darn you, causing me to waste more of my time... :) --Danny
Buahahahahaha. I'm good huh. Be OS was one of my favorites to use. It really needed to come with more software though....And of course it needed to still be around. I have the BeOS Pro 5.0 pack I bought with the BeOS Bible. On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 12:58, Danny Sauer wrote:
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?' on Thu, Sep 30 at 22:56:
I dunno - about 10-12 seconds of that is BIOS setup. BeOS starts up fast, but a stripped-down linux with tuned init scripts can certainly hold its own. :)
I have BeOS pro 5.0, I think I've seen a 5 second boot for my record.
You have a fast BIOS. :) I've run BeOS on several machines, but never noticed it booting much more quickly than Linux on the same machines. Now I'm gonna have to dig out those old install disks and play with it some more again. Darn you, causing me to waste more of my time... :)
--Danny --
http://www.cannibalholocaust.net http://www.misfits.com http://www.onethirtyeight.net http://www.suse.com http://www.slackware.com http://www.linux.org http://www.linuxiso.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.freebsd.org http://www.bsd.org http://www.antionline.com
On Friday 01 October 2004 09:58 pm, Allen K wrote:
-- ---------------------------------- http://www.cannibalholocaust.net http://www.misfits.com http://www.onethirtyeight.net http://www.suse.com http://www.slackware.com http://www.linux.org http://www.linuxiso.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.freebsd.org http://www.bsd.org http://www.antionline.com
Please trim this stuff.... We all know these sites and it's a waste of bandwidth. Thanks. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/02/04 09:36 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "A hangover is the wrath of grapes."
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 09:37:19 -0400 Bruce Marshall <bmarsh@bmarsh.com> wrote:
Please trim this stuff.... We all know these sites and it's a waste of bandwidth. Thanks.
Actually, Bruce, while I have to agree with you, this is less offensive, and wasting of bandwidth and recipients' time than those who top post and/or fail to truncate previos posts to which they reply. As you say " Please trim this stuff.... " Terence
On Thursday 30 Sep 2004 14:24, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Just what are you whittering on about ?.. seems like a lot of M$ Corp hot air to me quite honestley and of no REAL VALUE to anyone but M$ Corp . Pete . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
At 05:28 PM 9/30/2004 +0100, peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 30 Sep 2004 14:24, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
/snip/
I suspect that there is a certain amount of debugging code left in a lot of the stuff built for/on Linux. I happen to like Linux, and if you boot it on a fast machine, it boots a lot faster than a slow Windows machine, I'll tell you that for sure! ;=) The fellow who said Linux is worth the wait was right, altho XP actually has solved a batch of problems guys complained about--and created new ones, of course. They think they are "features." But I do wish, now that Linux is a more-or-less mature product, that a bit more attention would be paid to making it and the programs it runs bug-free. The reason I'm not using it now is that it crashed, big-time, and I have been too lazy to fix it. And if it can crash, there should be some easier ways to fix it. If I had a boot floppy with a program called "FIXIT" on it, it would sure help! Well, I'm only half kidding. I'll probably just reinstall it, Windows-style, but I haven't talked myself into that yet. --doug
On Thursday 30 Sep 2004 22:42, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 05:28 PM 9/30/2004 +0100, peter Nikolic wrote:
On Thursday 30 Sep 2004 14:24, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
See the text attachment (unix format).
/snip/
I suspect that there is a certain amount of debugging code left in a lot of the stuff built for/on Linux. I happen to like Linux, and if you boot it on a fast machine, it boots a lot faster than a slow Windows machine, I'll tell you that for sure! ;=) The fellow who said Linux is worth the wait was right, altho XP actually has solved a batch of problems guys complained about--and created new ones, of course. They think they are "features."
But I do wish, now that Linux is a more-or-less mature product, that a bit more attention would be paid to making it and the programs it runs bug-free. The reason I'm not using it now is that it crashed, big-time, and I have been too lazy to fix it. And if it can crash, there should be some easier ways to fix it. If I had a boot floppy with a program called "FIXIT" on it, it would sure help! Well, I'm only half kidding. I'll probably just reinstall it, Windows-style, but I haven't talked myself into that yet.
--doug
Insert the distro cd1 boot the cd choose install > repair installatiohn hey presto repaired . Pete . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
At 06:45 AM 10/1/2004 +0100, you wrote:
On Thursday 30 Sep 2004 22:42, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 05:28 PM 9/30/2004 +0100, peter Nikolic wrote: /snip/
But I do wish, now that Linux is a more-or-less mature product, that a bit more attention would be paid to making it and the programs it runs bug-free. The reason I'm not using it now is that it crashed, big-time, and I have been too lazy to fix it. And if it can crash, there should be some easier ways to fix it. If I had a boot floppy with a program called "FIXIT" on it, it would sure help! Well, I'm only half kidding. I'll probably just reinstall it, Windows-style, but I haven't talked myself into that yet.
--doug
Insert the distro cd1 boot the cd choose install > repair installatiohn hey presto repaired .
Pete .
Hello, Pete, and others-- Hey, presto, nothing. The system still won't boot. It gets part way thru the boot sequence and hangs. Now that I remember, I tried all this stuff last August, and that's why I'm too lazy to go on. And I would like to keep the KMail stuff that I saved, but I guess that's not in the cards. I ran the program twice. Twice it said it had a problem with post.fix. I don't know what that is, and I don't know why it didn't fix it the first time around. I didn't try a third time. If anyone has another idea, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll trash the old system and start over. Foo! --doug
I won't try to justify performance under KDE. As far as I'm concerned KDE3.x is very heavy. But do take into account that Windows 98 is six years old. If you run a six year old distro on your hardware, Say something like Corel Linux 1.0, it will fly. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za
participants (13)
-
- Edwin - -
alberto-g -
Allen K -
Bahram Alinezhad -
Ben Higginbottom -
Bruce Marshall -
Danny Sauer -
Doug McGarrett -
Hans du Plooy -
Jeffrey Laramie -
peter Nikolic -
Pieter Hulshoff -
Terence McCarthy