Linux Help
guides forums blogs
Home Desktops Distributions ISO Images Logos Newbies Reviews Software Support & Resources Linuxhelp Wiki

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Advanced DNS Management
New ZoneEdit. New Managment.

FREE DNS Is Back

Sign Up Now
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Does Mandrake 10.0 Run "slow"?
Onestep
post Jun 27 2004, 09:48 AM
Post #1


Whats this Lie-nix Thing?
*

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 27-June 04
Member No.: 3,240



I've downloaded and installed MDK 10.0 Official and it runs real slow compaired to W2K on my dual boot machine. This is my first exposure to Linux. Is there anything this Linux Newbie should "configure" or check out to improve program load speed?
Please be patient, Linux is NEW to me and I'm not up to speed yet!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robert83
post Jun 27 2004, 10:21 AM
Post #2


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,439
Joined: 3-January 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 2,069



Hi,

what are your system specifications ?


the entire system runs slow , or only a few programs?


Sincerely
Robert B


--------------------
Robert Becskei
robert83@linuxhelp.net
--------------------
May the source be with us!
--------------------
AMD X2-3800 @ 2400Mhz
2048MB DDR 400Mhz
DFI Lanparty UT4 NF4 ULTRA-D
GeForce 7800GT
250GB+250GB
Pioneer DVD-RW
17inch Samsung Syncmaster 757NF
WinXP Pro (SP2)/ CentOS 4.3
--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wookmaster
post Jun 27 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #3


./configure
***

Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 4-February 04
From: Michigan
Member No.: 2,290



What programs did you choose to install? If you choose all the server stuff it will definately take up resources.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VBD
post Jun 27 2004, 05:51 PM
Post #4


Whats this Lie-nix Thing?
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 27-June 04
Member No.: 3,244



From my experience with Mandrake 9.2 (it can't have gotten much faster since), Mandrake is a slow distro. Its nice and all, but I can imagine Win2K being faster than it. Unfortunetly, must of the fast Linux distro's are harder (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo come to mind). Try downloading VectorLinux SOHO (www.vectorlinux.com). Its slackware based, and blazing fast. It also takes away the hard part of setting up your system (as opposed to just using slackware). Although a text/text menu based install, its not much more complicated than Mandrake install, although you do lack the graphical install environment, and you need to use cfdisk. If you read up on it a little, you should find the install a breeze, and have a system a lot faster than Windows. Its not as easy as Mandrake, but you should be able to figure most of it out with a little help. Good luck! (You'll love it once you get past the install). One warning, you may need to type "Startx" to start the graphical environment, but I think the install gives you the option of a graphical boot up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hughesjr
post Jun 27 2004, 06:29 PM
Post #5


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,433
Joined: 25-July 03
From: Corpus Chrsiti, TX, USA
Member No.: 1,151



Mandrake 10 is supposed to be fairly fast (see this article) ... but I am afraid that there are not many distros that have the same X performance as the Windows GUI ... especially if you don't have lots of RAM.


--------------------
Johnny Hughes
hughesjr@linuxhelp.net
Enterprise Alternatives: CentOS, WhiteBoxEL
Favorite Workstation Distros (in order): CentOS, Gentoo, Debian Sarge, Ubuntu, Mandrake, FedoraCore, Slackware, SUSE
Favorite Server Distros (in order): CentOS, WhiteBoxEL, Debian Sarge, Slackware, Mandrake, FedoraCore, Gentoo, SUSE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim
post Jun 28 2004, 12:31 AM
Post #6


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 19-November 03
From: University of Minnesota- TC
Member No.: 1,828



I ran Manrake 10 for a while, I never thought of it as slow. Let us know what your system is like. You can also try running the command top from a command line and see whats running. Its pretty self explanitory, you will be able to see if any programs are eating up CPU or Memory.


--------------------
--Jim Lester
jim@linuxhelp.net

Distro: Gentoo
System: AMD Athlon 3000+ XP 2.166 GHz
NVIDIA nForce2 IGP Chipset
1GB 333 MHz DDR SDRAM
NVIDIA nForce2 Dual Head 64 MB Graphics

Server Distro: CentOS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Termina
post Jun 28 2004, 01:03 AM
Post #7


RMS is my Hero
******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 862
Joined: 18-February 04
From: Wisconsin
Member No.: 2,404



If he's running Windows 2000 (especially if it came with the computer) instead of XP, then it's probally a fairly oldish system (probally 128mb of ram or less, probally under 900mhz). Just a guess though.

KDE/Gnome both run like crap compared to the Windows 2000 GUI on specs like that.

Try Fluxbox or Enlightenment for a slimmer GUI, though they arn't as spiffy as KDE/Gnome. wink.gif

There's also a windows95 clone desktop enviorment, but I forget the name (sorry).


--------------------
*Points finger at the author above him* They're a witch! Burn them!
---
Vist my website!
Join me in IRC! Server: st0rage.org Channel: #UnhandledExceptions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Onestep
post Jun 28 2004, 06:36 AM
Post #8


Whats this Lie-nix Thing?
*

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 27-June 04
Member No.: 3,240



I'm running an AMD 400mhz processor and 192mb RAM.
I guess thats the problem?
Mandrake Linux, or Linux in general, needs lotsa CPU and RAM?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VBD
post Jun 28 2004, 09:41 AM
Post #9


Whats this Lie-nix Thing?
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 27-June 04
Member No.: 3,244



kde on mandrake I had found slow. If I remember, the Win95 clone is fvwm95.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim
post Jun 28 2004, 10:25 AM
Post #10


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 19-November 03
From: University of Minnesota- TC
Member No.: 1,828



linux doesn't need a lot of power, linux is muh more efficient with your computer than something like WIndows will even be, Manrake isn't even that bad, its KDE and GNOME that need power.

KDE and GNOME are like the new WindowsXP interface, its all bubbly and nice and full of things like shaded windows and translucent menues, those are what really eat up computer power. Take Termina's suggestion and try using Enlightenment of Fluxbox as your window manager instead of KDE.

Those can both be installed with the built in Package Manager that Mandrake gives you. Ounce you have switched over to one of those two, there are some other things that can be set to make sure than your getting the maximum amount of your computer's power for you and not eyecandy.


--------------------
--Jim Lester
jim@linuxhelp.net

Distro: Gentoo
System: AMD Athlon 3000+ XP 2.166 GHz
NVIDIA nForce2 IGP Chipset
1GB 333 MHz DDR SDRAM
NVIDIA nForce2 Dual Head 64 MB Graphics

Server Distro: CentOS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robert83
post Jun 28 2004, 10:26 AM
Post #11


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,439
Joined: 3-January 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 2,069



Hi,

yes, you see both Gnome and KDE uses these fancy effects, and thus it requires a fast cpu and 256MB ram, I'm running my Fedora Core1 installations at the company on 1700XP+ 256MB DDR Ram, it runs ok on those computers, my guess would be , that a 800-900Mhz Duron or Celeron with 256MB SDR ram or DDR ram should be able to handle Gnome and KDE at a acceptable level.

you can type in a console :

CODE
top


and see how much CPU is used when you open up something, and how much free memory you have, I guess in your case it is a really (extra) bad thing if it runs on swap memory (cause I think your hard drive aint the fastest one either (no offense here)).

you should definitely try one of the alternative GUI's in this case, you can check at this site http://www.linuxhelp.ca/desktops/ , and check out what are the reccomended computer specifications for the GUI's.


Sincerely
Robert B


--------------------
Robert Becskei
robert83@linuxhelp.net
--------------------
May the source be with us!
--------------------
AMD X2-3800 @ 2400Mhz
2048MB DDR 400Mhz
DFI Lanparty UT4 NF4 ULTRA-D
GeForce 7800GT
250GB+250GB
Pioneer DVD-RW
17inch Samsung Syncmaster 757NF
WinXP Pro (SP2)/ CentOS 4.3
--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wookmaster
post Jun 28 2004, 10:48 AM
Post #12


./configure
***

Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 4-February 04
From: Michigan
Member No.: 2,290



I did do some memory tests when trying to figure out which I wanted and gnome and KDE seemed to take up at least 150 megs more memory than IceWM.

My PC flies when I dont use KDE and gnome. From what I tested Gnome seems to use a bit less memory. but with 512 Megs I on average had about 480 used with KDE and about 400 used with Gnome. Thats with a SSH, SAMBA server running using Gnome Monitor (16 megs or so used by that)

Theres alot of other desktops make sure you try them out. Mandrake has a great installer, if you go to add packages I know ICEWM and a few other are included and it will ask you for the disk it needs.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Onestep
post Jun 28 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #13


Whats this Lie-nix Thing?
*

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 27-June 04
Member No.: 3,240



Thanks for all your suggestions!

I think I'll try using either Enlightenment of Fluxbox as my window manager instead of KDE. I don't want to give up on Linux even though my first impression isn't (wasn't ?) that favorable.

Any advise on installation? Do I need to delete KDE?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim
post Jun 28 2004, 11:11 AM
Post #14


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 19-November 03
From: University of Minnesota- TC
Member No.: 1,828



Unless your strapped for Haddrive space I would recomend leaving it for now. KDE installs some nice little programs to that you can still use in Enlightenment of Fluxbox or anything else for that matter. So my rec is to leave it for now.


--------------------
--Jim Lester
jim@linuxhelp.net

Distro: Gentoo
System: AMD Athlon 3000+ XP 2.166 GHz
NVIDIA nForce2 IGP Chipset
1GB 333 MHz DDR SDRAM
NVIDIA nForce2 Dual Head 64 MB Graphics

Server Distro: CentOS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wookmaster
post Jun 28 2004, 11:59 AM
Post #15


./configure
***

Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 4-February 04
From: Michigan
Member No.: 2,290



You can also switch back and forth between the two at the login screen. I would Leave it incase you decide you dont like the new manager.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hemant
post Jun 28 2004, 12:21 PM
Post #16


RMS is my Hero
******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 782
Joined: 6-October 02
From: Trichy,INDIA
Member No.: 29



I have same sort of feeling with Fedora Core-2.
My system configuration is..P4(1.7Gz),256mb Ram,16mb VRam.

Actually i just compared the memory usages of some applications in Fedora-core2 and Redhat-9.0.

Application Redhat-9.0 FedoraCore-2
Mozilla 20-30Mb 100Mb
RhythmBox 20Mb 80Mb
Xmms 5-10Mb 50Mb
Openoffice.org 50-60Mb 110Mb

This comparison was done using Gnome-system-monitor.Every application looks bulky in FedoraCore-2 unless Gnome-system-monitor is lieing or something.I have also checked /proc/meminfo and it looks the same.


--------------------
Hemant Kumar
user posted image
hemant@linuxhelp.net
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wookmaster
post Jun 28 2004, 01:10 PM
Post #17


./configure
***

Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 4-February 04
From: Michigan
Member No.: 2,290



You probably have a newer version of gnome running of FC2? Maybe they added a bunch to the window management.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2017 - 05:14 PM