Win 2000 runs faster than 2.4?
Rick Deckard
When I'm in X (GNOME) the machine is way to slow.
I ran Win 2000 Advanced Server on this machine, and to tell you the truth
this machine was flying.
Is there anything I can do to the kernel to improve X performance?
--
Rick Deckard
Blade Runner
#26354 - Filed & Monitored
dec...@forever-networks.com
Joe Fredrickson
words - -
> I recently installed 2.4 on a 166mhz pc. The PC has 80mb of RAM.
You installed what?
A 2.4 kernel? Did you compile it? Or was it the default that came
with your distro?
Which distro did you install?
--
cheerio
Registered Linux User 282072
<http://www.volutin.net --- everything irrelevent (under development still)>
Khayman
"Rick Deckard" <clar...@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:%O499.3950$6U3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I recently installed 2.4 on a 166mhz pc. The PC has 80mb of RAM.
>
> When I'm in X (GNOME) the machine is way to slow.
Problem found.
Gnome is a really heavyweight windowmanager - try running WinXP on that
166mhz and you will most likely have the same speed....
Try Blackbox instead.
X is a separate entity from the kernel - and a powerhungry beast.
> I ran Win 2000 Advanced Server on this machine, and to tell you the truth
> this machine was flying.
So?
If you want a server with fancy colors and 50 ports listening by default,
then please stay with win2k adv server.
>
> Is there anything I can do to the kernel to improve X performance?
Apart from upgrading that computer or changing to a lighter windowmanager,
no.
Khay.
bruce edge
Try compiling some if the important stuff, kernel, libc, etc, specifically for
your processor.
-Bruce.
Dave Leigh
> I recently installed 2.4 on a 166mhz pc. The PC has 80mb of RAM.
>
> When I'm in X (GNOME) the machine is way to slow.
>
> I ran Win 2000 Advanced Server on this machine, and to tell you the truth
> this machine was flying.
>
> Is there anything I can do to the kernel to improve X performance?
It might be X's fault in entirety, Rick.
You didn't mention the distro, but a lot of them enable services by default
that are options in Win2000. Were you running Apache? A news server? FTP
Server? Etc.
Shut off the features you don't need.
That said, I've found GNOME to be dog-slow. You could try something else.
For a server, I wouldn't even run X at all... I do everything remotely with
ssh (use PuTTY.exe if you're running a Windows box. You can tunnel X
through that).
--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org
http://www.cratchit.org
864-427-7008 (direct)
AIM or Yahoo!: leighdf
MSN: leighd...@hotmail.com
ICQ: 37839381
Paul Sherwin
<clar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I recently installed 2.4 on a 166mhz pc. The PC has 80mb of RAM.
>
>When I'm in X (GNOME) the machine is way to slow.
>
>I ran Win 2000 Advanced Server on this machine, and to tell you the truth
>this machine was flying.
>
As others have said, you're running a particularly slow window
manager. Gnome *does* generally run slower the W95 etc. in terms of
the user interface. So does KDE. You need to select a lighter, faster
window manager for a P166.
OTOH, what are you using the system for? If you're using it primarily
as a Windows file server with Samba for example, you don't need to
start X at all, and it'll blow the socks off NT or XP for file
serving.
HTH, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://www.psherwin.strayduck.com
"When I look back, the fondest memory I have is not really of
the Goons, it is of a girl called Julia with enormous breasts."
Spike Milligan 1918-2002 R.I.P.
Rick Deckard
any Windoze machine. My only gripe is the performance of X. I like working
in the X environment.
I need to improve the performance.
--
Rick Deckard
Blade Runner
#26354 - Filed & Monitored
dec...@forever-networks.com
"Rick Deckard" <clar...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%O499.3950$6U3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Khayman
>
> "Rick Deckard" <clar...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%O499.3950$6U3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > I recently installed 2.4 on a 166mhz pc. The PC has 80mb of RAM.
> >
> > When I'm in X (GNOME) the machine is way to slow.
> >
> > I ran Win 2000 Advanced Server on this machine, and to tell you the
truth
> > this machine was flying.
> >
> > Is there anything I can do to the kernel to improve X performance?
> >
> > --
> > Rick Deckard
> > Blade Runner
> > #26354 - Filed & Monitored
> > dec...@forever-networks.com
"Rick Deckard" <clar...@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:tjo99.952$qn....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The performance of the server itself is excellent. It's performance smokes
> any Windoze machine. My only gripe is the performance of X. I like working
> in the X environment.
>
> I need to improve the performance.
>
> --
> Rick Deckard
> Blade Runner
> #26354 - Filed & Monitored
> dec...@forever-networks.com
>
You actually answered?? So you are not just trying to upset everyone? I am
suprised!
Or maybe you understood your mistake and is now trying to flatter the people
here a little? Hmm...
Anyway, I believe that you have been given quite a few good ideas:
1) Try another windowmanager than Gnome - try Blackbox,
I've had blackbox running nicely on a P150/48mb - there are even more
minimalistic windowmanagers, how much GUI do you need?
Stay away from *anything* to do with KDE or Gnome, don't run Konqueror, run
Opera instead.
2) Check that your harddrives are running as they should/could - "man
hdparm" (hdparm -tT /dev/hda)
3) Check that you are not wasting memory on services you don't really need.
4) Recompile the kernel for your cpu. This may or may not improve
performance - give a go if you feel unemployed one day.
If you do, check out the preemptive patch, it might help you out some.
Good luck, and if you have troubles, why not ask in comp.os.linux.x ?
Khay.
Rick Deckard
get a better response.
I'll try to recompile the kernel first.
Khayman
> Please forgive me if offended anyone with the subject line. I thought I'd
> get a better response.
> I'll try to recompile the kernel first.
>
Don't worry, I think most people didn't react to much to it - I must have
been spending too much time in these "newbie" groups - there are numerous
people there who seem to find enourmous pleasure in posting questions only
written to arouse flames and irritation...
Your question was a bit uninformed, but since you are still around, reading
and replying I guess that it was indeed a sincere question.
I wish you the best of luck with your recompilations, I hope you will find
some reward from it, personally I am doubtful that it will give you so much
more X performance... If you are not afraid of recompilations, you might try
to recompile X as well - that's where your cpu cycles are getting stuck...
Khay.
Lew Pitcher
<clar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Please forgive me if offended anyone with the subject line. I thought I'd
>get a better response.
>I'll try to recompile the kernel first.
Try tuning your hard disk access first (hdparm)
Also, make sure that your swap space is sized appropriate for your use and
memory.
_Then_ try recompiling the kernel.
Lew Pitcher, Information Technology Consultant, Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group
(Lew_P...@td.com)
(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employer's.)