I think X-windows memory requirement is higher than windows GUI. It's understandable, that X have client-server architecture, while windows is not. Of course this make X has drawbacks beside the advantages. So, if you prefer comparing linux and windows, try with sufficient memory for X, ie, 512 mb, then test run your application on that system. Another thing, we can not compare 2 system based on their fresh-install performance only. It's been found in many places, where linux almost never be reinstalled due to problems like hangs, dr watson, etc. It's also found in many places where linux box almost never shutdown, or even they don't have monitor at console. Some of my clients shutdown their linux only 1 day in 1 year. -istiqfar. -----Original Message----- From: Örn Hansen [mailto:orn.hansen@swipnet.se] Sent: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:32 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] I went from XP to SuSE, but Win was faster!!!!!!!! tisdag 16 mars 2004 09:02 skrev Silviu Marin-Caea:
Scott Wrobel wrote:
I bet this subject will turn some heads ;)
Hopefully you're not trolling.
He is ... windows xp, with 128M of memory ... doesn't have time for anything except swapping for the first 5-10 minutes while it starts up.
Do this: hdparm /dev/hda
It's very important the DMA acces is on (1)
/dev/hda: multcount = 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq = 1 (on) using_dma = 1 (on)
To optimize disk access you could use this:
hdparm -c1d1u1W1 /dev/hda
If you see improvement, put it in /etc/init.d/boot.local
And read man hdparm so you understand hdparm.
You could try hdparm -t /dev/hda before and after.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com