LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2004, 04:41 AM   #1
lcutti
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Hungary
Distribution: SUSE
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
my linux exteremely slow


Hi,

I have just installed SUSE 9 a few days ago.
I have never seen Linux before. I was just too curious to try it.

I have a PII 400 mhz, 64 MB RAM computer. W98 was working on this machine at reasonable speed.
Now I installed SUSE linux alone, deleted Win.

Everything seems to be working, just extremely slowly.
That surprised me the most, as everywhere I read about Linux previously, I read it is faster than Win and does not need the latest hardware.


Starting Kmail takes about a minute, then adding a new email address to the addressbook another minute or more then saving the address another minute. I could do this on Win within a second without any waiting.

Internet browsing seems to be a bit faster than in IE.

Any Idea would be appreciated.


Thanks for all your responses. At least I don't feel I'm alone with that.
I have found something that may be important.

When I select failsafe mode at bootup,
I find the following warning highlighted in rows of stars.:
*******************************************
The DMA on your hard drive is turned off.
It may really slow down the FSCK process.
*******************************************

Then also :

IDE0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not functional.

I found the DMA setting in YaST ant it is ON.
Still these warnings do appear.


KSim (System monitor) shows:
64M ram, 44M Free
454M swap, 354 free
CPU: around 10-15%, but this jumps to 100, when I start any program.

I understand that DMA means Direct Memory Access with less CPU usage.
Is there a way I can see if it is functional or not?

Last edited by lcutti; 02-27-2004 at 08:44 AM.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 05:01 AM   #2
melinda_sayang
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Petaling Jaya
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 475

Rep: Reputation: 31
You use SUSE 9 in 400 mhz and 64MB ram computer. It is not fair to compare SUSE 9 and Win98 in old computer because the programs packaged in SUSE 9 newer than programs that compatible with Win98.

I suspect you use KDE desktop manager. KDE 3.1 requires a lot of memory, more than required by desktop manager in Win98.

so, if you want to make it faster:
1. Don't use heave ( require a lot of memory ) desktop manager like KDE or Gnome. Instead use XFCE, WindowMaker.

Oh, yeah, KMail. KMail is a part of KDE desktop manager so I consider it a heavy program. For email client that don't require a lot of memory, try Balsa.

I think what almost people mean 'Linux is faster' is Linux as kernel not as distro. As default distro like REdhat, Fedora is slow.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 05:36 AM   #3
yisnixslow
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Hi,
I'm facing similar problem.My KDE system guard shows 190 MB used out of my total 192MB RAM.My PC is P2 433 MHz 40 GB HDD 192 MB RAM. Won't compiling the kernel fix the problem ? Please help me how to go about it.
Thanking You

Last edited by yisnixslow; 02-27-2004 at 05:44 AM.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 06:01 AM   #4
MKS45
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Wirral, Merseyside, England
Distribution: Slackware 10 on old Compaq Presario; newish PC with SuSE 9.2 Pro dual-boot with XP
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 0
Similar situation here too.
Last weekend installed SuSE 9 - completely got rid of Win98 on a Compaq Presario 2292 with AMD K6 333MHz, 320Mb RAM & 40Gb disk.
I'm finding running stuff within KDE to be slow s l o w s l o w.....YaST in particular takes forever.

Running "top" from Konsole, I can see %idle dropping to zero anytime I try to do something within YaST - so on the face of it, looks as though it's a CPU issue.
I've also had strange occurrences like "cupsd" grabbing of my CPU even though I haven't yet got round to connecting a printer!

Will try Windowmaker and other environments as suggested to see if the same problems happen there.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 06:35 AM   #5
yisnixslow
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Hi,
You can view the list of daemons running using chkconfig and stop unnecessary ones using 'chkconfig <daemon> off'.After doing all its a bit less slow.
i tried windowmaker , its a little faster.It shows 185 MB RAM used instead of 190 MB in KDE.
So maybe its not the desktop manager but something else.
Linux doesn't seem to be for normal users, i'd better switch back to my good old win2k.
Before that i'd try compiling linux kernel to check if it makes any difference.
Any tips/suggestions would be greatly useful here.

PS : I don't understand why it isn't fair to compare win98/win2k with suse 9.Win98/2k run fast on old as well as new machines unlike suse 9 which probably runs fast only on new machines.Why don't they make it backward compatible with older machines like windows ?

thanks


Last edited by yisnixslow; 02-27-2004 at 06:50 AM.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 07:01 AM   #6
Marius2
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Munich
Distribution: SuSE 9.2, 10.2, 10.3, knoppix
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by yisnixslow
Hi,
I'm facing similar problem.My KDE system guard shows 190 MB used out of my total 192MB RAM.My PC is P2 433 MHz 40 GB HDD 192 MB RAM. Won't compiling the kernel fix the problem ? Please help me how to go about it.
Thanking You
The memory consumption is just ok, because under Linux free memory is considered useless memory - it will always try to stuff as much into ram as is possible.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 07:07 AM   #7
Marius2
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Munich
Distribution: SuSE 9.2, 10.2, 10.3, knoppix
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by MKS45
[....]
.....YaST in particular takes forever.
[...]
Yast takes forever even on my PIII/1100, but as we all know, a infinity loop will only take 5 seconds under linux to be completed ;-)
To be serious: SuSE9.0 is slow, a lot slower than 8.1/2. I'm not exactly sure what is slowing things down so much, but I'm suspecting KDE. Trying a lightweight window manager sounds like a good idea, remember that you're probably still able to execute KDE/Gnome programs as long as the QT/Gnome libs are installed.


BTW AFAIK the KDE development team claims some speed increase with version 3.2, so it might be worth a try; or wait until SuSE 9.1.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 09:13 AM   #8
lcutti
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Hungary
Distribution: SUSE
Posts: 6

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Hi Melinda,

Thank you for your reply.

I think, it maybe unfair, but for people who never seen Linux before, don't know anything about distros....

I just seen on SUSE home page that it supports processors PI through PIV, biut not 386 and 486.
They do not say the kernel or whatever, but SUSE.
You know, that "simply chanege" it will be faster and more fun.

Here is what they write:

"Don't Get Mad - Get Moving!
When was the last time you got mad about your PC? Spare yourself the annoyance and get down to the most frequent source of PC problems: the operating system. Do your PC a favor and migrate to SUSE LINUX! If necessary, you can do this carefully and gradually. No previous experience is needed to install SUSE LINUX on any common PC - even alongside an existing Windows operating system. Our installation support will gladly assist you in tackling obstacles. So what are you still waiting for? "

http://www.suse.com/us/private/index.html

So, I think, my PII machine is that "any common PC" and not even the worst.
For sending email, browsing the web etc. even a 486 machine was fine 8 years ago.
I would understand if I wanted to do some supercomputing, 3D movies or whatever you need PIII for. I do not do anythinhg the like.

I really love Linux, even if I have tried it for a few days only, and I still hope, that there is a way to make it work at a reasonable speed for such simple tasks. I have also found amazing the huge amount of software they packed on those CDs Just for the price of the 2 books.
I really don't believe that I should have a PIV for sending a few emails.
 
Old 09-19-2005, 11:31 AM   #9
DonS
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
answer to memory full, slow system in Xwindows

Though this trhread ended over a year ago, I did not see the actual answer to this problem, which I also experienced just recently with SUSE 9.2.

The SUSE website explains that there is a problem between Xwindows and the KDE font aliasing. This occurs even when not using KDE (I use FVWM). Their solution works and is simply:


"Switch off Anti-Aliasing in the KDE control center."


their relevant page is:

http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2002/0...uming_mem.html

-Don
 
Old 09-19-2005, 11:57 AM   #10
xpression
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Mandrake 10.2
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Re: answer to memory full, slow system in Xwindows

Quote:
Originally posted by DonS
Though this trhread ended over a year ago, I did not see the actual answer to this problem, which I also experienced just recently with SUSE 9.2.

The SUSE website explains that there is a problem between Xwindows and the KDE font aliasing. This occurs even when not using KDE (I use FVWM). Their solution works and is simply:


"Switch off Anti-Aliasing in the KDE control center."


their relevant page is:

http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2002/0...uming_mem.html

-Don

Xwindows and KDE are used in many distros, does this mean other distros are also affected?
 
Old 09-19-2005, 12:05 PM   #11
Fritz_Monroe
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
Distribution: Mint 13
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
I think that the comparison or confusion stems from comparing different generation OSes. SUsE 9.2 is a fairly current version of the OS. Windows 98 is nowhere near current. If you compared Windows 2000 with SUse 9.2, then that would be a fair comparison. You would find that Windows 2000 probably wouldn't even load onto that machine. But SUsE not only loads, but runs. It's slow, but it runs.

F_M

edit: Sorry about adding to a thread this old. I didn't seen the date until after I posted.
 
Old 09-19-2005, 12:15 PM   #12
xpression
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Mandrake 10.2
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Sorry about adding to a thread this old. I didn't seen the date until after I posted. [/B]
the thread is old but the relevance isnt
 
Old 09-19-2005, 12:35 PM   #13
titanium_geek
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Distribution: it died/ macosx
Posts: 2,478

Rep: Reputation: 50
the main point is that "modern" desktop enviroments (the bit you can see) are heavy on the ram in older computers. They really need more Ram to run. icewm is a userfriendly lite windowmanager (like desktop environment) - like win 98 or os 9-

recompiling the kernel won't do much, probably.

distro: the bit around the kernel. a collection of software packages around the kernel.

If the problem is too little RAM for the heavy de's (gnome, kde) then yes, it could be a problem in other distros.

titanium_geek

EDIT:
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Distribution (the lq encyclopedia [wiki] page on distribution)

Last edited by titanium_geek; 09-19-2005 at 02:15 PM.
 
Old 09-19-2005, 04:23 PM   #14
Vgui
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 496

Rep: Reputation: 31
Just skimmed over the thread, but comparing a modern (and argueably bloated ) distro like SuSE to an old OS like Win98 is a little unfair. Perhaps put WinXP on that computer and see how it's doing after a month (or heck, even how it's doing without graphic drivers). I imagine that Slackware with FVWM, Fluxbox, Openbox, Windowmaker, etc. would just fly (then again, that's my answer to everything).
 
Old 09-19-2005, 04:25 PM   #15
lcutti
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Hungary
Distribution: SUSE
Posts: 6

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Hi,

I'm the one who originally started this thread.

Well, in the meantime, I have upgraded my machine to an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ with 512 Mb RAM and SuSE 9.2

Now, some things go a bit faster, but there are still some that are almost as slow as on the old machine. I'm already getting used to it.
Starting Kmail still takes almost a minute.
I tried Evolution, but it crashed often, so I returned to Kmail.


By the way, a friend of mine has Win 2K on such an old PII 400 MHz 64Mb machine.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suse 9.2 & SATA - Slow, Slow, Slow jess1975 SUSE / openSUSE 6 01-28-2007 12:17 PM
New Fedora Internet connection slow slow slow matrim Fedora 9 07-29-2005 01:39 PM
Why is my linux so slow the_imax Linux - General 11 05-20-2005 09:59 PM
why is linux slow Okashira Linux - Newbie 7 01-10-2004 01:45 AM
RH8 vs. W2k - Slow, slow, slow zerojosh Linux - Software 2 06-30-2003 07:19 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration