I have a Toshiba Tecra S1,(Intel Centrino 1.5) and I have installed Mandrake Linux 10.1 official i586 version. I thing that I have noticed is that my system has slowed down, as compared to windows. Just opening a Web-browser takes quite some time, as compared to Windows. Can the slowness of the system be attributed to installing an i586? Would downloading and installing i686 or i386 make a difference?

I don't think it would produce a difference you'd notice. The main thing is, if you use heavy apps, then you've got a slow system, and if you're running low on RAM, then it's even slower. Gnome and KDE are very big memory eaters, and very slow too, compared to Windows (if you like). There are lighter desktop systems to select. If you need speed, use console; that's probably the fastest you can get out of your machine..

Graphics means memory usage means slowing down. You may have noticed that Windows is meant for playing and for graphics stuff; it's been developed that way. Linux on the other hand is worse in that aspect, at least yet. It's based on UNIX which is meant for a bunch of things that do not include having nice graphics around, to cut it short.

While linux may have started as the "geeky" sort of command line system (like they all did) today it is not so. Certainly, kde is a "hog" but that is generally noticed when compared to running fluxbox or fvwm. Windows pre-launches certain applications, like IE. And while their launch might seem faster, the operation of the system is not.

Granted, this question gets discussed everywhere and debated profusely. I know one list that we times events, including overall boot up. (linux wins that because it never needs to be booted up!) Perception is everything in this. Perhaps you have some unneeded services running. There really is less program running in linux than in windows, which means theoretically it should be more responsive. (Does that mean faster?)

Thank you b0uncer and Ixthusdan for your informative feedback....

Or it could be some piece of your hardware isn't fully compatible with Linux. Video card may be using a generic driver. Hard drive controller may not be using DMA or bus mastering. Etc...

If you want to experience the exact opposite, try buying a PC with linux preloaded and then installing Windows on it. If it uses a VIA southbridge, for example, audio won't even work out of the box for you (with Windows.) You'll have to download the Vinyl drivers to make it stop beeping out the case speaker. What a hassle! Why can't Windows just work like Linux does?

So your opinion is biased whether you realize it or not.

That's a good point.

Here's another one: I just ran Windows98SE on a 1,2GHz/512MB machine, and I have to admit I was waiting a bit faster run than what I got. I have run a RedHat 9 on that machine earlier, and even if RH9 isn't the fastest choice around, I surely have to say it worked a lot more comfortably than Win98SE did now (the reason why there's Windows98 now instead of RH9 is a certain Windows-only app and money; I'm not spending a sack full of cash for an MS operating system anymore). It worked flawlessly for 10 minutes after which the running got slower and slower and slloowwweeerrrrr..

The climax came after half an hour of sticky-sticky Windows usage: opening of a pdf file the size of less than 100kB caused a series of crashes followed by a total freeze - no other applications other than the pdf-viewer open. No idea why, but seemed like somebody had just eaten all of the RAM for breakfast and then kicked Microsoft at the knee. Later inspections support this view; I can't say if it was Adobe or just Windows itself, but something leaked.

You might find Mandriva 2005 or 2006 are quicker. Although 2006 seems to be very buggy.