RH7.1 vs Win2k
 

I recently installed RH7.1 after using WIn2k for a while. IMO, RH is much, much slower than Win2k. It takes at least 5-6 seconds for Mozilla or Netscape to open. In Win2k, IE would open within 1 second of launch. The issue really isn't with my box either; I'm running a PIII 933 w/ 256Mb RAM, 256Mb swap (could that be my problem?). In general, the system just seems slower under RH than WIn2k. Anyone else think so?

the netscape IE thing is nothign to do with the OS being arse. Try loading NS under win2k.....

IE is ALREADY loaded by win2k on boot as it is the shell for win2k or something equating to that. Netscape has to start from scratch. That's not exactly correct there.. but well.. near enough as it's all i know!!! :-)

The whole browser thing was just an example. Everything seems noticebly slower across the board. Even the file manager.

bit of a pants example then!

I personally find most of linux runs notably faster than crappy win2k, which i run on the same box.

i've not noticaed a single thing that goes faster under win2k than linux, maybe my IM client, but that's the code.....

SSH is slower iunder windows, as is smaba mounting etc... Windows does tend to do some things better, and more consistently at times, but never faster

chris
xxxx

Have you got your kernel configured to use DMA properly? It didn't set up by default when I did my system rebuild with 2.4.2 , thus starting NS, and particularly the gigantic Star office was depressingly slow. Tried hdparm -tT /dev/hda (and hdb for my 2nd drive) and found a 3mb/sec speed. Recompiled to use default pci dma and got no better! Found the problem was in the chipset support for my board (440bx) where I also had to enable tuning of drive parameters. Now get 12mb/sec.
I still think NS is slow to load web pages though, compared to windows machine sharing the connection. Am checking out alternatives.
Jim

Looks like this could start a war if any Windows fans came in here, but let me say something.

I ran Win2K for 30 minutes before I decided to take it back off one of my systems to replace it back with Slackware. My system runs much smoother, faster and better with Linux than with Win2K.

Oh well.

hdparm gave me 18.23 Mb/sec disk read. I dunno. Maybe I'll switch back.

Look,
I ran win2k before, and it required me to run it on a very fast machine with tons of memory before it started to look and feel half way decent. And then I really still didn't trust it, cause I would come home at night every now and then and find my server hung..Just hung for hours not doing anything. Checking the events logs did not help out at all, except saying unexpected failiar,...no shit...
Anyway, I put Redhat on this Fast machine that I built for WIn2k and it is flying with no problems what so ever...Infact I get bored sometimes and reboot the box for no reason at all..It has not crashed at all since and it is doing alot more than what win2k did for me.

Nabil,

How fast is your computer? I am getting a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 computer. Do you think that this is fast enought to support Win2000 and Linux in one box? My mem is 1024MB. Is this large enough?

HHH,
Well mine when I built it 8 months ago, had dual PIII-500 512 cache on Asus main board. 2 scsi seagate cheatas 10000 RPM drives running on Adaptech 29160 scsi controller with 1024 ECC 133MHZ Micron memory.
I think mine was well balanced fast system.

In you case you will be lacking SMP support as in dual processor. Usually servers need that sometimes. Also Drives need to be scsi for fast operation without overloading CPU time. Memory is good although it is always better to have more..

ANyway, I am sure you system will be running quite nicely with Linux and Win2k although don't be surprised if you See a bule screen every now and then when running Windows.

Nabil,

Checking back with my computer "specs", I found out I have 60 GB internal hard drive. and a Pentium 4 on an Asus main board. I don't have any fancy stuff like Cheetahs though...:cry:
Anyway, have you ever tried doing dual boot stuff? If you did, how'd you do it?

Basically have 2 drives or 2 different patitions on 1 drive, Install Win2k on one side and then go back and install Linux on other side...I think Linux will then let you see a menu to boot either to Linux or dos "win2k". May have to do some adjustments in Linux Boot loader or LILO to get Windows to boot from menu afterward. other People do it the other way around and use a Linux boot disk to boot into Linux. I personally don't like to support this, but there are alot of Docs on the net to do this.

Hope this helped you any at all.

Re: RH7.1 vs Win2k
 

Hello,

I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 a few days back. ( Incorrect installation since I lost win2000 and all my precious data )

But the speed, while definitely less thatn that of win2000, is not as bad as what you describe.

My pc's a celeron pentium 2, 400 mhz, built-in vga card...
Passable.

Regards,
A.A