Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
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.
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Originally posted by Noerr I'm trying to say that 600MHz system is still decent and even with 64MB any os should work fine with normal speed. but as it seems linux has become much more resource hungry than windows
I agree. I've been playing around with Linux and trying to find which distro I like the most. What I have found though is that Linux is but slow when using with a GUI. I thought Linux was suppose to be a mean lean running machine. My win98SE is by far leaner then what I've seen so far from Linux.
It takes forever just to bring up a file manager is enlightenment.
what all you guys here seem to overlook is the fact that
X by itself is quite a big toad ... guess being fully network
transparent takes it's toll in the "weight" of it ... and
comparing that to win98 or eXPeriment is a beat ;} ...
besides that, even though most cards will run with
X these days, hardly any installation uses acceleration
functions out of the box.
But I can assure Noerr that I am doing "serious work" on
machines with a P133 or P166 and 64Megs ;) using X ...
I admit, though, that I wouldn't want to run OpenOffice on
one of these ;D
Tinkster. But what is serius work then if you don't even use OpenOffice which is a pure basic for computer usage. Office programs are as simple and as easy as it can get with computer programs
We are writing software to retrieve, analyse, visualize
and store acoustic data from echo sounders ... and our
software runs smooth on even old boxes.
As for the office suite, again... I've been using Star
(and other applications) on the same Athlon600, 256Megs
under both Linux and win98 ... the speed gain in 98 was
that the error message "Out of memory" came very quickly,
all the time :}
well I don't know, about windoze 98, but in win xp you can work fine with 64MB ram, with 1 or 2 apps running, if you aim for more computer would get slow, which is normal, but in RH+kde3/gnome you get a slow start without any apps open, and when open 1 2 or more it'll get much slower+ some apps wouldn't even start
Had similar problem. Turns out linux only saw 13 of the 64MB RAM. Dunno how to fix it though. We only shoved in a harddrive with linux already loaded to fix a problem on the windows partition (yes - yet another reason to have linux instead of windows) so we just decided to shove it and fix the windows problem and not worry about the ram thing (We were on vacation and wanted to play mp3's). Try running "free" and see how much it registers there. I think there is a paramater to the kernel in the form of RAM=??? specifying the amount of RAM.
I must agree. Windows is by far faster graphical OS than KDE or Gnome. Dont know about blackbox...
What Linux needs is GREAT, LITTLE CONSUMING Desktop Enviroment like MacOS/2. It is just great!
Pros of OS/2:
- Fast
- Extremely easy to use
- Not bloated by heavy colors and billinear graphics
- Good to look at, not too many details
- Doesn't crash as often as Windows.
blackbox, try it out. read the manpages or wherver you find info, this is quoted from the package info in debian:
$ apt-cache show blackbox
Package: blackbox
Priority: optional
Section: x11
Installed-Size: 752
Maintainer: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <shaleh@debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Version: 0.62.1-1
Provides: x-window-manager
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 (>= 1:2.95.4-0.010810), xlibs (>> 4.1.0)
Suggests: menu (>=1.5)
Filename: pool/main/b/blackbox/blackbox_0.62.1-1_i386.deb
Size: 211572
MD5sum: 6f8049b2075b80d3da79a7c80ac2a8f9
Description: Window manager for X
This is a window manager for X. It is similar in many respects to
such popular packages as Window Maker, Enlightenment, and FVWM2. You
might be interested in this package if you are tired of window managers
that are a heavy drain on your system resources, but you still want
an attractive and modern-looking interface.
.
The best part of all is that this program is coded in C++, so it
is even more attractive "under the hood" than it is in service -- no
small feat.
.
If none of this sounds familiar to you, or you want your computer to
look like Microsoft Windows or Apple's OS X, you probably don't want
this package.
$
And I can confirm that - runs better on a P90 with 32 MB Ram alongside apache, catalina, qmail and some others than windows on a P III 700 with 128 MB Ram.
True - it get a little slow with 64meg's RAM or less. If you additionally hose your swap and misconfigure the xserver it takes about 5 min to load mozilla. Now how do I get it back to work ok?
No guys, the solution isn't to use a simple Xserver. KDE3/gnome have to be optimized in a way to be faster and more stable than Windoze, because KDE not even more stable than Xp at this point.
Go and check Mac OS X on the other hand (based on bsd) funky x2 nicer x2 inovative x2 comparing KDE or win XP + works much faster on 400MHZ than kde3/Xp on 1400+ MHz.
If Linux wants to make it to desktop market it needs more stability more inovativity, more speed than competition, before developers will be ready to make good software for it.
Well, KDE should be stable - if a bit slow, I'll agree there, you sure you've got the configuration right? Even my blackbox was slow as hell until I got the right setup and stuff for the screen - now I can throw whatever at it.
I got constant trouble with some pieces of kde - konqueror just freezes sometimes.I got one file (tarred driver) that freezes konq for certain if i create a directory called 'sis neu' and put it in there - without doing anything to the file. The only way to get it going again is to remove the directory from commandline. Had the same issue on different occasions with suse RH and debian. Now that is KDE2. Tried KDE3 with suse one time (rpm's from suse) and that thing was crashing all over the place. Something seems to be halfcooked there.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.