Linux Response
 

Anyone here, know if any linux distro has the response time in X that windows does? As in like when opening programs etc... I've got a pretty beefy machine, but still see a big delay in the distro's I've used myself. Which is limited between Redhat & Mandrake, and currently doing a gentoo install to check it out. I'm not interested if someone thinks one is better than the other or not, I just want to know if someone has actually seen the speed in linux and which distro that windows has on response time.

Looking for a linux distro with the response time of windows? I use slackware and the time is not even comparable. Gnome on Slack takes a fraction of the time as my windows me box opens a the same program. ie. netscape, opera. I was thinking more along the lines of when is windows going to get there stuff together and get programs opening up as quick as linux does.

Just for good measure and comparison:

Which programs are we looking at?

Cheers,
Tink

Grizzly, then I must be missing something pretty big, or that Redhat & Mandrake are really poorly coded, because this machine is a amd 1800+ with 1 gig ram, and my laptop p4 2ghz with 1gig ram, and I Find it to be quite slow in any program in linux, as where in windows its pretty much as fast as you click it, its up. Now for sure, I say 100% coping files over the network every linux distro I've tried blows my windows box's away, but something as simple as mozilla has a atleast a 3-5sec delay in opening, on both machines. Other programs are pretty much the same. As again, like I Said I could be missing some kinda advanced option, still compiling gentoo install atm to test it out on that, but by no means did redhat or mandrake compare to access time.

IMHO - Vector Linux 3.2 is faster than Slackware 9.

I'm currently multibooting

Win98se
Mandrake 9.1
Red Hat 9
Vector Linux 3.2 SOHO
Slackware 9

Vector Linux is the fastest - even running KDE its fast - but I prefer Slackware 9

Personally, I think it is mandrake or red hat. I have never used graphics in red hat, but I did with mandrake. I tried both kde and gnome. Both were so slow I could hardly stand it. As a matter of fact I did not stand it, I went to slack. I am now amazed. I really think that mandrake and redhat have a lot going on in the back ground that make them that way. I really don't know, it has been a while and I did not know as much as I do now. I now know how to go in an shutdown unneed process's and do the configuratoin on the command line,which is a lot quicker. My Slack box, I have a 1.2 ghz chip with 512 ddr, the windows is an 800 mhz, with 256 mb. But the difference in opening up a program is huge. I am talking like 1/10 of the time. The gentee should scream on your box though. I have never tried it, but I hear it is just a rocking system if you can get it all put together.

Perhaps being new at Linux we don't know how to ask this particular question. I have experienced the same thing. RedHat 9.0 IMO is just as bloated as Windoze. It is easy for me, though it takes a few hours, to setup a Win XP machine and customize it where it runs well. I think the problem with RedHat is that so many packages are installed by default.

The first time I installed RH9 I chose Server installation and Everything for packages, because a veteran Linux user told me to, since I have a fast machine and an extra 60GB ATA/133 hd. That install ran like a turtle. The last time I installed RH9, which is OFF my computer for now, I chose Personal Desktop and then picked only the packages I thought I would need. All that I want right now are: text editor, Mozilla, Evolution, Gimp, Scribus, cdrecord, apt-get or aptitude, and something to replace Dreamweaver. Not knowing what all those packages are, because of the new terminology, once I had installed RH9 and checked the install.log I found that 587 packages were installed. It still ran terribly slow, even taking 3 minutes just to boot the machine after I had switched to XP to use Photoshop and PageMaker. BLOAT! But, of course, RH9 is probably made to fit the most machines and most users possible. Therefore, I am installing Debian and then will try Slackware 9.0 It took me a few years to learn how to get a Windoze box to run well, and I am prepared and learning this new (and better) OS called Linux!

Tinkster, to give you an example. When on the same type hd running Win XP Pro, if I open Outlook the program pops up in about 1 second. When opening Evolution in RH9, nothing happened for perhaps 3 seconds, then the little splash screen poped up and took another 6-8 seconds to initialize (or whatever) it's icons before opening. With Photoshop and Gimp the time opening is about the same. Just too bad Gimp is so sorely lacking compared to PS once it's there. For IE6 in Win XP, Googlle is on the screen instantly when I hit the icon on the quick launch bar. When I tried to launch Mozilla, same result as Evolution - about 10 seconds (without a site to go to I might add). Like it had to go get a lot of stuff and get it all together before it could launch.

Now as for downloading, the only thing I've ever done in Windoze that comes close is using Bit Torrent, which I believe is available in Linux, but I haven't gotten that far yet. And cdrecord has weaned me off of Nero, as I prefer the cml when just *doing something* like burning a cd. To keep this balanced, the burner in XP is a real piece of junk. Good for someone who refuses to read and doesn't know any better, but absolutely horrible for anyone who wants to learn and do some work.

So, today I am compiling my first kernel for Debian. Someone whose nick is mrhyde went so far to help me as installing Debian on a machine, trying what (s)he told me, and posting the results. You get that kind of help in LQ, which is quite amazing to me. MasterC does that type of service. He's the best mod, IMO!

Bottom line is this: we're learning something totally new, and until we know how to drive the thing, we'll probably creep along like Grandma instead of screaming along like Dale Earnhart, eh? Even during the hours of frustration *building instead of using* this new OS, it's quite a pleasure over all the M$ OS's.

I build and repair comps, and Linux has got me excited again about setting up a system for someone. M$ is just a big disappointing bore to me. I know that even after all I do to *fix their box* when I build the comp, I'm going to get the phone calls about Windoze messing up. Keeps us in business, you know!

Yeah, I hope so..Right now doing a stage 3 to test it, guess it sence I havn't had a successful install of it yet, got some info from another person running it on same laptop and hopefully comes out good this round. Will keep a post after I check it out

Chinaman, Majin,

I'm afraid the answer is as simple as (for
you) unsatisfactory. MS preloads most of
the DLL's required by their applications
during boot, which is why a bloated
monster like word (> 200MB on disk)
can load faster than many a Linux
program. Which means that my Slackware
boots in 40 seconds, and windows2000 boots
in 2.5 minutes on the same hardware with
identical network connections/shares and
all...

I can live with even 15 seconds of startup
time for my Office (or 6 for my browser)
because I know that I won't have to reboot
the box at all, it won't crash, and I don't even
have to reboot for software installations, not
even for a complete upgrade of the OS...
and that saves (lots) of my time :}

Cheers,
Tink (ex-Microsoft-victim: "Oh, you have a
windows problem? Hey, have you rebooted yet?")

Thanks Tinkster!!
 

I am in total and complete agreement with your post. Thanks for putting it so succently. I certainly hadn't looked at the load time for progs like that, but it is worthy and correct.

I'm committed to being a Linux only man, and am just right at the doorway today. I'm recompiling a Debian kernel, and when that's done and correctly, I'll have my DVD+-RW working so that I can burn the Slackware iso and install it on the 30MB free space on the hd with Debian.

You mention in your review of Slackware 8.1 that you didn't like 9.0 because the kernel isn't in there, and you roll your own (if I remember correct). Plus you don't need the new compiler language for what you do. After reading what I want my Linux OS to do, would you say that would apply to me also? I definitely want to roll my own kernel no matter which distro I use.

Thanks a bunch Tinkster!


Welcome to Windows!

Your mouse has moved, you must reboot!

Welcome to Windows!
You must reboot because your watch is Rolex!.

Hey, someone, btw....

After I recompile my kernel for Debian, if it works good and I like it that way, can I copy it and then insert it into Slackware, since I'll be using the same hd? Or does that not work.

You have not cause you ask not....

this thread got me to wondering, so i did some checking. i have two boxes;
1) athlon thunderbird 1.2 with kde 3.01
2) athlon xp 1.7 with gnome 2.2

1) boots slack 8.1 from floppy in 1:50 with 25sec to load the floppy,
takes 4 sec to open mozilla with home page up,
takes 1 sec to open konsole,
took 18 sec to open oo writer, first time post install; second time 8 sec,
takes 1 sec to open xmms.

2)boots slack 9 from disk in 33 sec after a 35 sec bios memory check,
takes 4 sec to open mozilla with homepage up,
takes 1 sec to open gnome terminal,
takes <2 sec to open abiword,
takes 1 sec to open xmms.

there's no real comparisons offered here, i just got interested in how quickly these things do happen and thought it would be interesting to quantify some of it for myself. i use different setups for different users,
so i can begin to get an idea what works good with what.

i also have an older machine with mandrake 8 and win2000pro w/ntfs
and on that they are both slow(mandrake tests the very limits of my patience in kde), but windows is about twice as fast..

Cool, just go around hijacking threads eh? ;)

As long as the kernel you compiled didn't have modules, shouldn't be a problem. If it did, be sure to copy the kernel, the source, the /lib/modules/kernel-version and System.map (from the /boot directory) when you migrate it.

Also, this does assume you mean it's all on the same hardware, not just the same HD.

Cool

:(

Can I do anything right? Sorry about hijacking the threads. I think after you help me fix my problem, I'm getting off the boards. I feel absolutely horrible. :cry:

Yes, it's all the same hardware, and the same hard drive. I'll just install Slackware (8.1 or 9.0 - I probably hijacked another thread, too) on the 30GB of free space I left when I partitioned and installed Debian.

Please do forgive me. I must go back and read the rules again. I don't even understand half the abbreviations, etc. you guys use.

:cry:

P.S. At least you didn't give me one of these :tisk: At this point I don't think I could handle it. I'm stealing my own joy!