LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Mandriva (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/mandriva-30/)
-   -   Mandriva Slow (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/mandriva-30/mandriva-slow-562717/)

coolrams 06-17-2007 10:26 PM

Hey I am a new Linux user.
I have installed Linux from Mandriva 2007. But its too slow. I have a P4 with 128 MB of RAM .I have a dual boot with win XP pro .
Can somebody help me with the problem

jkerr82508 06-18-2007 02:21 PM

You probably need more RAM. This is certainly the case if you're trying to run KDE. IMO, 256mb is about the minimum if you want to use KDE.

Jim

MoMule 06-18-2007 02:27 PM

Like jkerr82508 stated, KDE needs more RAM.

Have you tried one of the other windowmanagers?

Deion "Mule" Christopher

Pebcak 06-18-2007 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolrams
Hey I am a new Linux user.
I have installed Linux from Mandriva 2007. But its too slow. I have a P4 with 128 MB of RAM .I have a dual boot with win XP pro .
Can somebody help me with the problem

Slow where? How? Doing what? Like the others though my first suggestion is try more ram and a lighter wm. KDE and Gnome have a ton of eye candy but are ram intensive.

keratos 06-21-2007 06:54 AM

Hey coolram. Are you using KDE or GNOME?

If so, then use a lighter desktop environment such as Xfce. Lighter = less bloat = less bells n whistles.

You can run Xfce from your login screen. You should have a "Session" or "Options" button. Click this and find "Use Xfce" or something similar. Its is there in both GNOME and KDE distributions of Mandriva. I have both but am not logged in currently and cannot remember exactly.

Regardless, linux is MUCH faster than Windows not least in part because of the far superior memory management, disk and filesystem management, kernel and module management and microcode execution. It is FAR superior so I'm not sure what you are comparing Mandriva with. I think the confusion here is to do with the window manager you are using. KDE and GNOME are far more flexible and improved than the native XP window manager however this comes at a cost - speed. Xfce uses the fwm "Free Window Manager" model and this manager can do pretty much what XP can. Not as slick as KDE or GNOME but if its speed and XP fascimile you want, then this will do.

Incidentally, try running Vista on your machine and then report back on performance ;)

Cara25 06-24-2007 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkerr82508
You probably need more RAM. This is certainly the case if you're trying to run KDE. IMO, 256mb is about the minimum if you want to use KDE.

Jim

I agree, I run 2007 and KDE on a P4 with 512MB RAM and it's as fast or faster than Windows XP. I started with 256MB RAM and KDE speed was okay but after moving to 512MB RAM I am completely satisfied with performance.

keratos 06-25-2007 06:34 AM

Gnome should be more responsive because of its use of Bonobo (based on CORBA S/W development model) which is 2x faster than the DCOP model used by KDE. That is essentially the theoretical white-paper results of several "surveys" and "test" although in mitigation, there is no evidence to assert that testers where objective rather than subjective - we just dont know.

In any event, these days hardware is so inexpensive its always best to procure the most amount of resource you can, for your computing needs. The cost of additional RAM, or more HDD space, faster DVD writer, improved networking, it is all relatively inexpensive.

What is for sure, is that with Linux, you're certainly not stuck for choice and all those configuration/tweaks and settings available through desktop managers and window managers, means you will always be able to make it "faster then windows"

;)

keratos 06-25-2007 06:34 AM

Gnome should be more responsive because of its use of Bonobo (based on CORBA S/W development model) which is 2x faster than the DCOP model used by KDE. That is essentially the theoretical white-paper results of several "surveys" and "test" although in mitigation, there is no evidence to assert that testers where objective rather than subjective - we just dont know.

In any event, these days hardware is so inexpensive its always best to procure the most amount of resource you can, for your computing needs. The cost of additional RAM, or more HDD space, faster DVD writer, improved networking, it is all relatively inexpensive.

What is for sure, is that with Linux, you're certainly not stuck for choice and all those configuration/tweaks and settings available through desktop managers and window managers, means you will always be able to make it "faster then windows"

;)

Allen614 06-27-2007 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolrams
Hey I am a new Linux user.
I have installed Linux from Mandriva 2007. But its too slow. I have a P4 with 128 MB of RAM .I have a dual boot with win XP pro .
Can somebody help me with the problem

XP Pro with 128 RAM? Does it work? With Wind-hoe's memory allocation,you're running totally out of the swapfile.

Did you build a Linux swapfile pertition?

IsaacKuo 06-27-2007 06:50 AM

If he didn't have a swap partition, he'd be complaining that applications randomly close without warning.

I had a computer running a lean XP Pro with 128megs of RAM. It was okay for light use (no Office).

marietechie 06-28-2007 08:19 AM

Agreed.
 
I have a P4 ~1.6 Ghz processor with 256MB RAM. KDE is a little slow on it. I recommend upgrading your RAM -- something I'll do when I get around to it.

I prefer the KDE menu over XP's. It is so much more flexible and very easy to use, once you get the hang of it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.