Mandriva 2006 (x86_64) Questions about macromedia/flash, and "Linux faster than win?"
Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Mandriva 2006 (x86_64) Questions about macromedia/flash, and "Linux faster than win?"
I have MandrivaLinux 2006, 64 bit processor, so naturally, a x86_64.
I have read that flash doesn't support the 64 bit at this time. If true, is there any alternative, something linux designed that can get flash and macromedia to work?
I can't say I'm upset, but I don't really like seeing "missing plugin" all the time, while accessing sites that require flash/macromedia.
Another small topic, I heard that Linux is faster than Windows. You may laugh at what may be some noob response, but does Linux do that is faster? I love Linux, I think it's great. I however see WIndows XP boot up, and surprisingly shut off fast!
This really doesn't bother me too much, because I still prefer to be on Linux, even though it may take another minute or so to load up or shut down.
Also, something small, while watching DVD's at full screen, right clicking the mouse to show the menu makes the DVD stutter or pause for a quick moment. No biggie, but still, how is Linux faster when it boots up slower, shuts down slower, and the DVD/Video issue?
Also, let's say I open something up, and I see that hour glass, but the program isn't opening up. It just hangs for a while.
Can you shorten the time on that? I see if you have KMail open in the taskbar, and you (accidently) open it using another icon, it will occasionally hang for a minute or so.
Any help/advice, would be appreciated, thanks!
On this very pc I'm using at home, windows takes about 60 seconds to boot up (count from the moment when the bootloader ends and OS starts loading) - Linux takes 30. Usage? Linux is Much faster. Also I've come to a conclusion (after checking things out for a long time) that Linux tends to use memory more efficiently than Windows - my SWAP, for example, is empty almost all the time. Windows? RAM is just a memory, while the swap-file of Windows is..hmm..well, quite a big one. Shutdown is the only thing that Windows does faster, but _only_ _sometimes_. If Windows needs to do anything other than just die (say, I've installed updates or anything alike, or it just has a bad day), it takes two to three times as long to shut down as Linux does. Not that it'd make any difference, since when I shut the pc off it does it by itself and I can go do other things.
I haven't seen any such slow-effect while watching videos (dvd or any other) and opening up menus. Perhaps you lack memory? One thing is true, and that is that if you're using X window system (have some nice graphical user interface in front of you), your memory usage is big. So is with Windows, yeah, but in Linux too. X eats up quite much. So if you get rid of X (which is only a program, if you look closely), your Linux is quite a fast one devil. So, if you want a smooth and fast X, you need memory - I'm not saying anything about the amount of it, because it depends on what services you're running and so on. You _can_ tune your Linux to be fast. A normal installation isn't as fast as possible.
Also some programs (like Konqueror at least used to) load themselves in the background so when you launch it, it's already there and only "pops up", making you think it's as fast as lightning. Really it isn't, but it can be made to look like one. Konqueror used to (not sure nowadays, I don't use KDE) have an option where you could choose how many instances of it would be preloaded at every time ready to be launched quickly.
So, to conclude: Windows is something that just is slow, or fast, depending on your resources (memory etc.) Linux on the other hand can be tuned quite freely, and I feel I've succeeded well enough, without giving out much of the nice outlook and fancy small things that make my eye happy, since my Linux boots, runs and shuts down quickly. Using it is much faster than using Windows, in the aspects I need it in. Surely enough you can make Windows be faster than Linux if you like, but vice versa too.
Just pick up the right distribution and tune it in the right way, and you have no speed or performance problems. But try to do that with Windows..no, you can't.
[QUOTE=b0uncer]Also some programs (like Konqueror at least used to) load themselves in the background so when you launch it, it's already there and only "pops up", making you think it's as fast as lightning.
That's an idea that was in my head a while back, or similiar. When you load an OS, have everything that's a click or two away, be automatically loaded, just wait for you to click on it.
Being I'm new, I'm not quite sure how to make Linux faster. The only reason there is an issue on this long delay in shutting down, is swapping harddrives.
Most people (which I have done) have that boatloader, believe that's what it's called.
It has Windows and Linux on a harddrive.
Mine is set up differently. I have a 5 1/4 bay in my computer tower that allows you to use different harddrives with ease.
Bascially saying, you place a harddrive in this container. This container goes into this slot thats mounted like a CD/DVD ROM would be. You then lock it, turn the PC on and can use the drive.
Shut off the PC, unlock it, take it out, slip another drive in, lock it, power up the PC.
So I have one that is Linux and one that's windows. When I want to switch from WIN to Linux, it sometimes seems like lightning, Linux, however, a slight delay.
I'm usually patient, not the type to phyically hurt machines that slow up, but when you hear "Linux is faster than win", I'd like to find out how, know what I mean?
So from this bootloader, I see this menu that shows something like "booting system, press escape for verbose mode", then another screen, loading other data, and then the desktop.
Windows, seem to show the screen for a few seconds, then boom, you're on. SO to me, WIndows seems to be 5x times faster than Linux, a guess anyway.
What do you mean by this X server? I have seen it here and there, not quite sure what it is, and how to get out of that. I think I tried it by clicking "shutdown now" in the terminal.
I'm still new to Linux, but what's nice is that this system is feeling like my home/personal/primary system and feeling a bit more comfortable using it too
Well X window system is the big ugly guy who's enabling you to have windows, graphics (ok, not talking about console graphics now), desktops and such things around. If you close X, you are back in a terminal, in a console, in a CLI (Command Line Interface) rather than GUI (Graphical User Interface). Like you'd be in DOS in a Windows world, except that DOS and Windows are OSes today, Linux is a kernel, a shell is a program (compare to DOS prompt) and X Window System is a program (compare to graphical Windows desktop). So, X is, brutally said, everything you see in graphics and not in an "ugly" text-commandline (exception: graphical shells, like Gnome-terminal or Konsole).
Enough about X this time well, as I said in my last post, Linux can be slower or faster than windows. It depends. This morning my Linux shut off in seconds, faster than XP normally. Tomorrow it probably will take a bit longer. I don't mind..in your case, it might be annoying indeed. But could you use two of those "dockable harddrives" so you wouldn't have to pull one out and put another in to switch OS?
One main thing in making your Linux boot & shut down faster is to decrease the number of processes you run. Ubuntu Linux, for example, tends to try and run PCMCIA-services on a table PC - even though this one doesn't have them? Well, it's user-friendlyness I guess (no need to specify if you're installing it to a desktop or a notebook), but it takes time and eats up resources = makes your Linux slower, for no reason. That's one example of a dead unneeded process. But there are others you might not need, that are run normally. Every time a process needs to be started and ended, it takes time. So don't run the processes (at least automatically) at bootup, and you don't have to wait for them
When you look at what processes you are starting at boot and killing at shutdown, the number is relatively big, and I bet you wouldn't necessarily need them all.
You'll learn to tune Linux as you advance in it's use, and I'm sure Linux can be made a lot faster than Windows, if one likes, but I myself tend to just use it and not go crazy if it's a second or two slower than Windows. Windows has other, greater faults that Linux doesn't have, and I'm happy I don't have them
Also, as a last point, I'd like to say that this whole speed thing is relative - everybody can surely prove one is faster or slower than another, and in the end it only depends on your will and skills how fast you can make your system. In your case I'd install both OSes on the same HD or use 2 HDs at the same time, because switching the physical disks takes time
I dont keep things open, like Kaffeine or email, or have much of anything start up at boot.
I just heard Linux is faster, and I don't see it. Don't get me wrong. I love linux, and this bit of slowness is certainly not going to keep me away from this system. I love it too much for that.
After hearing what some are saying, maybe I have something that is causing the slowness, or not configured properly.
JBAILEY may be the distro u use is not fast enough , or not THE RIGHT DISTRO FOR U , I used suse 9.2 then switched 2 pclinux os 0.92 , i just love it and i personally feel its alot faster then suse 9.2 with parallel stability , also try to switch to light desktop viewers like FLUXBOX , KDE is resource hungry (not that u can blame it) also it might be possible that ur file system is ineffient (yeah it also matters) i have personally seen the difference when i switched from EXT2 to REISER then JFS file system , (what i think ext2 was slowest , reiser fastest jfs a little behind reiser but hte bad thing about resier was my distro kinda became CORRUPT , so try out JFS FILESYSTEM , ) use FLUXBOX , and a different distro , and is ur swap space atleast twice the ram u have?
It seems that the swap memory is the same as my RAM.
I like KDE, and it's not really slow. I guess the biggest issue is the delay in shutting it off to switch to Windows (mentioned earlier in this topic).
While we're on the subject of various distro's, what distro is like an actual OS, with KDE?
I see so many, and I really only hear of a few on amazon, or best buy, mostly Suse, Mandrake/Mandriva, Red Hat, some D name.