Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
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.
there is very little difference in the two. You will not get any performance increase in changing, unless you have some sort of problem on your system which is slowing things down a lot.
both distro's support NTFS readonly. that's nothign to do with them, it's in the kernel, which is next to identical on those distro's.
and in case you think about trying to use Read Write on NTFS. DON'T. just DON'T.
and if your system is the best, then that indicates that you don't know how to use linux, or the concepts behind it. my redhat server is lovely and fast. and the machine is pants.
Well i noticed KDE is alittle more stable with the 2.2.2 release but its still slow as heck. And where do you get the idea that i can read the NTFS hard disk? i cant find any option anywhere!!
One more thing..is it easier to make a desktop shortcut in Mandrake becuase i heard its more user friendly than redhat which is a chore to do the simplist of things.
2) user friendlyness isn't far from benig plain patronising. MD is just on the right side, but then all the user-friendly botl on's slow the system down and down, like anythign else does.
NTFS readnig is inside the kernel. the distirbuted kernel might not have ntfs supported, but you can easily recompile the kernel to support it. i've never used NTFS but i kow both my RH and MD installs both contain a compiled NTFS.o driver. There is plenty of information around on getting NTFS to work.
On all the computers ive tried, Mandrake runs MUCH slowing (in KDE) than Redhat because of how much junk they bloat it with.
If you are having problems with X running slow, get more ram. I have one computer with 128 and one computer with 256 (going on 1.5gb) and KDE runs great on both.
On a friend of mine's computer who at the time only had 32 (yikes!). KDE was UNUSABLE with Mandrake and slow but somewhat usable with Redhat.
I've never really been a fan of Mandrake and can't recommend it.
Don't you think 256MB crucial PC2100 ram running at 150Mhz is fast/large enough for basic work? i can waste another 70 on another stick of 256mb ram but i dont think i need to.
Mmm, okay i'll install GNOME. Count of hands how many people use GNOME?
Mmm, okay so upgrade to 512MB right? my motherboard supports 1.5GB max anyways so what do i have to spare.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.