LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 06-22-2011, 10:44 PM   #1
Firefox54
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: Debian, Windows 8
Posts: 73

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Why is win 2000 faster than linux( gnome, KDE, debian)


I currently use a win 2000 and its does what I need it to. On a pentium 2, basic tasks( opening folders, looking in the start menu, creating files etc.) it does it in a good amount of time. Yet when I used both debian gnome and xfce, The speed of these tasks lagged. On KDE, it was so slow I couldn't get anything done. I have tried LXDE, its goes fast, but I couldn't seem to like it.

Just wondering... why is the default desktop enviroment on linux, slower than win 2000???
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 06-22-2011, 11:18 PM   #2
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
It shouldnt be that different, unless you've got some issue.

I'd doubt that its due to not enough RAM, but its possible. Win2000 wil run on 64MB (though it wont be happy), even debian Xfce will run horribly on 64MB. I wouldnt be surprised if you had driver issues. No video drivers, or poor video drivers can make everything lag badly.

BTW, there is no 'default desktop enviroment on linux', and dont forget that Win2000 is 11 years old and out of support.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-22-2011, 11:46 PM   #3
Hevithan
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Location: Washington State
Distribution: Zorin5-(Ubuntu 11.04) // Backtrack 5-(Ubuntu 10.04) // Dreamlinux 3.5-(Debian)
Posts: 275
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 40
Cascade's driver theory seems plausible.I am running Pentium Centrino w/512Mb ram and intel graphics, on a 2005 laptop, I have 2 different distros and one does better then the other. One also has current support for my video card, and the one that doesn't? ...
Compiz (Graphic windows manager) won't work right, my Dock takes forever to load, opening windows is a pain (of course compiz is on, just set minimal), it won't do anything video related well at all,mouse lags from time to time. I switch over to my supported distro and everything works fine (compiz on full), flash is happy, windows just pop open, my mouse doesn't lag, etc ... and both of them boot faster then my computer did when I had XP.

If you are just looking to try a minimal Desktop, Fluxbox is pretty cool. It was recommended to me once, and it is simple. Panel,right click to access menus, and that's about it. Fluxbox has different styles (I think they are all done in script, not 100% sure though) and what not but it is definitely not gnome,xfce,kde, or unity ... it is small and light. Some things are a little tricky to setup on it, but once it gets going it's a mini-beast
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 01:42 AM   #4
i92guboj
Gentoo support team
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Lucena, Córdoba (Spain)
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 4,072

Rep: Reputation: 384Reputation: 384Reputation: 384Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I currently use a win 2000 and its does what I need it to. On a pentium 2, basic tasks( opening folders, looking in the start menu, creating files etc.) it does it in a good amount of time. Yet when I used both debian gnome and xfce, The speed of these tasks lagged. On KDE, it was so slow I couldn't get anything done. I have tried LXDE, its goes fast, but I couldn't seem to like it.

Just wondering... why is the default desktop enviroment on linux, slower than win 2000???
Well, if you are comparing an OS from year 2000 to an actual version of linux then you already have your response. Memory requirements alone will make a big difference. Would you expect Windows 7 to work on that machine?

So, you will have to use something adequate to your machine. That could be a modern distro with a light desktop like lxde (which you don't like), fluxbox, openbox, enlightenment, or an old distro that uses kde 3.x (not 4.x), pyppy linux, dsl, or something like that.

Alternatively, you could try adding more ram to your machine, if that's the problem. You can use the top or htop tools to see the memory usage. You are probably hitting swap heavily (which is slow) when you open any of the big desktops.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 05:08 AM   #5
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
Just wondering... why is the default desktop enviroment on linux, slower than win 2000???
There is not "default Linux desktop". Linux is just a kernel, it can't even be used directly. I guess that the closest thing to a "Linux default desktop" is the command line.

GNOME and KDE are more about eye candy than minimalism.

Also, there are many lightweight window managers (not desktop environments).
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 02:42 PM   #6
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 4,470

Rep: Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400
Have a look at AntiX and Vector Light. They'll both run in 64MB, so they're not very demanding. The window manager is Ice: I remember using that a decade ago on a 66MHz Motorola 68060!
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 03:24 PM   #7
spwnt
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Distribution: Linux Mint/Debian/Arch
Posts: 78

Rep: Reputation: 12
as other people have said, ofcourse a current linux distro wouldn't have the same system requirements as windows 2000. the release dates are 11 years apart. if you compared the system requirements of a linux distrobution from 11 years ago with windows 2000 it would be way lighter.

there are a few lightweight distros out there though.

you could look into crunchbang, puppy linux or slitaz... though if i was looking for a resource light distro i would probably just build debian with lxde.

crunchbang is probably the one you'll be most interested in.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 03:52 PM   #8
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,500

Rep: Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413Reputation: 2413
Windows is a good product. I don't know why people bash it all the time.

If you like it then keep it.

BeOS used to be much faster and maybe Haiku-OS is still faster.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 03:58 PM   #9
frieza
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: harvard, il
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,216

Rep: Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397
yes you are comparing apples to oranges
if you were to find a linux distro from the era your computer was built and installed it on the machine i'm sure you'll find a different result, however older distros require a bit more knowledge to use and don't have as much automation as modern ones do
newer distributions assume you have newer hardware and install software that requires newer hardware to function with any decent speed, but being linux you can change that and install a lighter weight desktop environment, this of course requires a big of know how
another suggestion is to at the very minimum add ram to your machine (preferably upgrade to the max amount your board supports), and if possible i would go farther and say upgrade the video card to the best you can afford for that machine's hardware (pII is probably pci or agp video card), those 2 changes will show probably the most bang for your buck in terms of performance enhancement.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-26-2011, 09:02 AM   #10
Firefox54
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: Debian, Windows 8
Posts: 73

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
Windows is a good product. I don't know why people bash it all the time.

If you like it then keep it.

BeOS used to be much faster and maybe Haiku-OS is still faster.
I like windows 2000 for its speed on my old hardware. I also like the design of the filesystem and the start menu. The only problem I have with windows 2000 is it doesn't work with newer software. Google Chrome refuses to install on anything less than xp sp2. K-Melon just doesn't run, for some reason. Other applications, I just have to add dlls to the system dir.

Haiku-OS sounds like a good idea for me. It's lightweight. The file system layout looks simple enough for me, and it looks like theres a good sized software repository.

Does dual boot on a dell optiplex gx1, pentium 2 with 254 mb ram sound good?
 
Old 06-26-2011, 09:15 AM   #11
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721
You could also try Linux with a plain window manager (no desktop environment).
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-26-2011, 03:10 PM   #12
Firefox54
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: Debian, Windows 8
Posts: 73

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK358 View Post
You could also try Linux with a plain window manager (no desktop environment).
I know a desktop enviroment contains a window manager, but what does a desktop enviroment consist of? This wouldn't leave me with the command line would it?
 
Old 06-26-2011, 03:26 PM   #13
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I know a desktop enviroment contains a window manager, but what does a desktop enviroment consist of? This wouldn't leave me with the command line would it?
If it would be command line, what windows would there be to manage?

A desktop environment is basically consists of a window manager, panel, file manager, program that draws desktop icons, and a suite of consistent applications. You don't need any of these to be able to comfortably use a GUI, other than the window manager and possibly the panel. Also, you can still use DE-dependant applications (all they really need is a DE-specific shared libaray to be loaded, they don't need the DE itself to be running).

Right now, for example, I'm usign the Openbox window manager and the "tint2" panel.

The panel isn't even really necessary because Openbox lets you switch windows and desktops by keyboard shortcuts and by a menu that appears when you middle-click the desktop.

Last edited by MTK358; 06-26-2011 at 03:32 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-27-2011, 06:00 AM   #14
i92guboj
Gentoo support team
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Lucena, Córdoba (Spain)
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 4,072

Rep: Reputation: 384Reputation: 384Reputation: 384Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I like windows 2000 for its speed on my old hardware. I also like the design of the filesystem and the start menu. The only problem I have with windows 2000 is it doesn't work with newer software. Google Chrome refuses to install on anything less than xp sp2. K-Melon just doesn't run, for some reason. Other applications, I just have to add dlls to the system dir.

Haiku-OS sounds like a good idea for me. It's lightweight. The file system layout looks simple enough for me, and it looks like theres a good sized software repository.

Does dual boot on a dell optiplex gx1, pentium 2 with 254 mb ram sound good?
Ugh, chrome takes like 6x the ram that win2000 needs to run (and that provided that you won't use more than a couple of tabs), you wanted a strange marriage there and it failed, no wonder. Also, I have no idea what you mean with "the design of the filesystem". The Win implementation of fat32 is not the best (just try to open a directory with many hundreds of files, or look at the artificial 32gb limit when partitioning) every other OS does better at handling fat32, and that's a real pity when it was MS that created it in first place.

Or maybe you meant the directory layout. But that's an entirely different thing...
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:12 AM   #15
MrCode
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 864
Blog Entries: 31

Rep: Reputation: 148Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54
Haiku-OS sounds like a good idea for me. It's lightweight. The file system layout looks simple enough for me, and it looks like theres a good sized software repository.
Uhm…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haiku Release Notes
Please keep in mind that this is alpha software, which means it is not yet feature complete and still contains known and unknown bugs. While we are mostly confident in the stability of this release, we do not provide any assurances against data loss.
IMO Haiku is fine to stick in a virtual machine, but I don't think it's really that great of an idea to install it on physical production hardware.

Last edited by MrCode; 06-27-2011 at 06:15 AM.
 
  


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
is GNOME faster than KDE? Hoyeru Ubuntu 10 03-25-2007 01:15 PM
Problem with Fedora Core 3, Samba, gnome & win 2000/XP edesmarais Linux - Networking 21 12-15-2005 01:36 PM
Gnome or Kde which is faster? greppinFunk Linux - General 2 12-15-2003 07:42 AM
Everything being equal, which one is faster, GNOME or KDE? dsuratman Linux - Newbie 3 11-18-2003 12:07 AM
Lilo: Dual boot Debian & Win 2000 mudelf Linux - General 3 11-12-2003 01:55 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 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