Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)
by nl » Fri, 22 Aug 2003 06:45:59 GMT
This all is very sound advise. Don't use Linux on desktop at all. I tried to
get a browser and mail/newsreader to work at bearable speed but finally gave
up and
and started to use Win2000.
Compared to Mozilla/Opera/KNode/KMail
IE & OE are flying. AltDESK is no match to the
corresponding program in fvwm package but it's bearable.
Nevermind that I have to use Reflection X
to run emacs, xterms and the Motif app I'm developing.
Non operational backspace is a small price to pay
for a desktop that does not crawl (I did not
run KDE mind youm I used fvwm).
My next step it to ditch linux on my home computer
though I keep it solely because cdparanoia/cdrecord
are so much easier(faster) to use from command line
than Nero. And mplayer kinda works most of the time
(I like it better than WinDVD actually)
Servers are the only places where Linux belongs really.
Desktop apps in Linux crawl (if work at all).
They're just written this way I guess. Probably it's because of the portly
libgtk.
Opera seems quicker than Mozilla at times but still is
a dog compared to IE. So, Qt sucks as well
performance wise. I guess.
It's funny though, because I remember how proud
this crowd was some years ago {*filter*}ing how slow
Windows was at the time and how much faster
anything built on top of X11 was :-)
Re: Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)
by Hal Burgiss » Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:35:49 GMT
No, its because you lack the time or skill to configure your system.
That's a choice. My current desktop does not crawl, nor any Linux
desktop I've ever had (going back to 1997 or so).
--
Hal Burgiss
Re: Linux desktop performance (was Re: X performance)
by throopw » Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:43:21 GMT
::: Ben
::: My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4
::: and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much
::: faster than X in RedHat. The applications takes a bit longer to
::: load under linux as compared to in NT. I use 160MB swap space for
::: linux. What seems to be the problem? Why is there a difference in
::: performance? And sometimes Netscape closes by itself under my linux
::: X. Any suggestions for improving performance?
Sounds like you are using KDE or Gnome. That's probably what's driving
you into swapping. Don't use them, and I'd expect you could start a web
browser and news client without using the swap (just barely). Right now
on a 500mhz 128mb redhat system on my desktop, X is taking 20mb
(including both the server and window manager), the web browser 30mb,
and the rest is down in the noise -- another few mb all told.
This should all fit comfortably in 80mb.
: "nl" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
: Don't use Linux on desktop at all. I tried to get a browser and
: mail/newsreader to work at bearable speed but finally gave up and and
: started to use Win2000.
I've been using linux for some time, and I get better performance
on my redhat linux boxes (using a barebones wm, mozilla firebird,
and tcl/tk based news and email) than with ie on xp
on identical 500mhz 128mb hardware.
Wayne Throop XXXX@XXXXX.COM http://www.**--****.com/
Similar Threads:
1.Linux desktop performance (was X performance)
"Hal Burgiss" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:45:59 -0700, nl < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
> >
> > Servers are the only places where Linux belongs really.
> > Desktop apps in Linux crawl (if work at all).
> > They're just written this way I guess. Probably it's because of the
portly
> > libgtk.
>
> No, its because you lack the time or skill to configure your system.
> That's a choice. My current desktop does not crawl, nor any Linux
> desktop I've ever had (going back to 1997 or so).
>
My desktop itself does not crawl my Mail/Newsreading
apps do. Fvwm virtual desktops used to switch
almost instanteneously.
To be specific the performance of these apps suck:
Mozilla (for some reason it seems to work faster on Windows)
Opera
I could not get KNode & KMail to work so I can't speak
of those two.
I realize that an upgrade to a 1GHz+ system would make
Mozilla perform bearably fast but I'm a tad bit lazy
to do that at the moment (And I lack conviction
that is will be at least half as fast as Outlook)
For now I'm enjoing the blazingly fast performance
of Outlook and Outlook Express.
Mind you, I have no complaints about properly written
X11 apps like emacs or xterm :^)
They're plenty fast :-D
Heck ddd is fun to use and the example of fine X11
code are abound. Mozilla is not one of them though.
Neither is Opera.
I don't think I have an issue with a system that
is not tuned properly. It's PII 266 with 192Mb
running fvwm (one).
So it's just an older cpu having to deal with
Mozilla inefficiencies.
2.10 reasons to love Ubuntu, Performance, performance performance
3.[News] Linux Improves Scheduler Performance, SGI Chooses GNU/Linux for Performance
4.[News] GNU/Linux Favoured for High Performance, Desktop Security
5.How to compare System Performance and Disk IO Performance
Hi AIX User
How to compare System Performance and Disk IO Performance ?
Old System : p5 9117-570, 4 x 1.65GHz
New System : p5 9117-MMA , 4 x 4.2GHz
We want compare System Performance and Disk IO Performance
I just have
Multi-user Performance (rPerf, SPEC CPU2006)
19.66 for Old System
38.76 for New System
moonhk
GMT+8
6. How to compare System Performance and Disk IO Performance
7. performance tools for analyzing java performance
8. SMP performance problem in 2.4 (was: Athlon spinlock performance)