| Suse/Novell This Forum is for the discussion of Suse Linux. |
| Notices |
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.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
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.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
01-05-2006, 04:33 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: fedora cor 5 x86_64
Posts: 639
Rep:
|
Windows seems faster than Suse on my new processor
in the past 3 years of my using linux, it was ALWAYS faster than windows. i just got a 64 bit athlon 3800 and have dual boot, suse 10 64 bit, and windows xp 32 bit. it seems that windows runs a lot quicker than suse, oppening things like azureus or eclipse just takes less time. why could this be?
|
|
|
|
01-05-2006, 07:14 AM
|
#2
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The most beautiful city in the world.
Distribution: Mostly RedHat. Also Suse, Ubuntu, PHLAK etc.
Posts: 149
Rep:
|
Are you using OpenSUSE 10 or SUSELinux 10?
I've dabbled with OpenSUSE 10 before and I can confirm your findings. I'm guessing it's because a lot of the features and proggies in OpenSUSE are experimental as opposed to the rock-solid equivalents in SUSELinux?
Then again, in my case it could've been I just didn't know how to configure everything properly (very likely). I was also using the 32-bit SUSE as opposed to 64-bit.
Have you tried another *Nix 64-bit as well?
|
|
|
|
01-05-2006, 12:58 PM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: fedora cor 5 x86_64
Posts: 639
Original Poster
Rep:
|
i am using open suse... i had initially installed kubuntu, but it didnt have any 32 bit libraries installed, and it was a pain trying ot get 32 bit apps working correctly. so, not really. any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
01-05-2006, 01:12 PM
|
#4
|
|
Guru
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kinetik
Are you using OpenSUSE 10 or SUSELinux 10?
I've dabbled with OpenSUSE 10 before and I can confirm your findings. I'm guessing it's because a lot of the features and proggies in OpenSUSE are experimental as opposed to the rock-solid equivalents in SUSELinux?
Then again, in my case it could've been I just didn't know how to configure everything properly (very likely). I was also using the 32-bit SUSE as opposed to 64-bit.
Have you tried another *Nix 64-bit as well?
|
OpenSuse is Suse minus proprietary stuff, so it shouldn't make any diffeence unless you are using OpenSuse test versions.
|
|
|
|
01-05-2006, 08:04 PM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: fedora cor 5 x86_64
Posts: 639
Original Poster
Rep:
|
thats what i thought... im using opensuse 10.0... i dont know what the deal is!
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 03:05 AM
|
#6
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The most beautiful city in the world.
Distribution: Mostly RedHat. Also Suse, Ubuntu, PHLAK etc.
Posts: 149
Rep:
|
Well, I can personally recommend RedHat AS4. It's rock-solid, fast, reliable... it's just great! Maybe a bit of overkill for a desktop user, but that would be my personal choice regardless of whether for Servers, Workstations or Home Users.
Pretty sure it's available in a sexy little 64-bit number as well...
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 03:26 AM
|
#7
|
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2005
Distribution: Smoothwall
Posts: 283
Rep:
|
Fedora Core 4 64bit + 25 second boot trick
or
Suse + hibernation
But Suse is generally one of the slower distros. Especially with KDE. My 512mb system slows down to crawl. Unless I enable 3d acceleration. But then it starts crashing for some reason.
*shrug
I respect Fedora Core though. Its one of my first linux setups that actually felt noticably faster. I'm glad it was my first distro.
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 05:52 AM
|
#8
|
|
Guru
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by slantoflight
Fedora Core 4 64bit + 25 second boot trick
or
Suse + hibernation
But Suse is generally one of the slower distros. Especially with KDE. My 512mb system slows down to crawl. Unless I enable 3d acceleration. But then it starts crashing for some reason.
*shrug
I respect Fedora Core though. Its one of my first linux setups that actually felt noticably faster. I'm glad it was my first distro.
|
I ran Suse 10 with KDE on a notebook with 256MB ram for a while and everything ran well. Your problem could be caused by something else because KDE would not slow down your system if you have 512MB ram unless there is another problem elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 05:59 AM
|
#9
|
|
Guru
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,128
Rep: 
|
Moved: More suitable in our Suse forum.
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 08:37 AM
|
#10
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,155
Rep:
|
I installed SUSE 10 GM and it works slower than everything else I have on this computer.
Its sluggish. Sluggish can be explained this way.
1)Takes time to open applications
2)If I maximize or minimize a Window, and if Amarok is runnning in the background, it would crack the MP3 playback. I don't know why does it require so much high resources.
Everything else installed on the system -- Mandriva LE 2005, Slackware 10.2, Debian Sarge, Ubuntu, Kubuntu work fine.
The System has 256MB of RAM and a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz processor, which I assume is quite enough for SuSE.
In all, SuSE 10.0 seems to be taking up a lot of resources on this computer, for nothing. 
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 11:39 AM
|
#11
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Distribution: Sabayon 3.5Loop2
Posts: 1,150
Rep:
|
I would recommend, especially if you want to run SuSE with all the trimmings, to get SLICK. SLICK has all of SuSE's pretty features, and all of the max speed. I tried it out on my laptop, and it is notably faster than OpenSuSE and SuSE 10.0.
|
|
|
|
01-09-2006, 12:27 PM
|
#12
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: California
Distribution: SLED 10, openSuSE 10.2, Ubuntu Drapper
Posts: 713
Rep:
|
Try modifying your Kernel and Re-Compiling it to your needs.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|