Why is Linux always sooooo slow??!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 08:09

AlphA wrote: 1) WinXP is older and was developed to run on much older hardware than we have today. You should be comparing a newer Linux distro to something like Vista, which is more recent.

I've tried Vista (final, build 6000), and it runs quicker than Linux!
Yes, there are slowdowns, but it's not severe.
Program launching speed is roughly the same as XP, if not slightly longer.

AlphA wrote: 2) The speed everyone talks about on Linux is NOT in the GUI - that was added to make the OS easier to use. Try doing number-crunching tasks on Linux (Super PI, video encoding, etc etc)....and compare the results to Windows. On my PC, Linux comes out tops.

Could you * please * give me some results of benchmarks?
If Linux really is that much faster than Windows, then I'll be damned!!!
What's the reason for this increase in speed?
Better optimizations??

SBSP · Post by **SBSP** » 28 Mar 2007, 08:22

Over all linux sux with desktop, i'm not really updated with all the new distros running KDE.

shiv is right linux is slow

but i still say its meant to be a server with no GUI just a prompt.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 09:55

I read this:

Improving Security and Performance: Shutting down unneeded services
Unneeded services that are left running are potential security risks and can potentially use up processor cycles.
Typical services that are automatically started during installation, but are often not needed (particularly on a desktop box)
are postfix (mail server), mysql (database server), and pcscd (smart card reader daemon).

So then, I can do a full install, I just have to remove unnecessary services, right?
What else should I kick out?
I go to K Menu | System | YaST | System | System Services (runlevel).

I'd like to have all software installed, I suppose it's just a matter of removing unnecessary services/daemons, that eat CPU time.
SUSE comes with over 2000 packages - I tried removing some, but then i get dependency conflicts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 10:03

Taken directly from novell web site:

* Processor: Intel: Pentium 1-4 or Xeon; AMD: Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Athlon 64, Sempron or Opteron

* Main memory: At least 256 MB; 512 MB recommended

* Hard disk: At least 500 MB for minimal system; 3 GB recommended for standard system

* Sound and graphics cards: Supports most modern sound and graphics cards

Now, is this some sort of joke?

thEnaileDonE · Post by **thEnaileDonE** » 28 Mar 2007, 12:29

Yes... it is a joke... uhm... or maybe it isn't hmmm... let's ponder this for a moment and ask ourselves why this would be considered a joke... hmmm... nope, still can't seem to get it... let us meditate on it for a while longer and see if the question becomes apparent...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 12:34

It's a joke because SUSE runs very slow, given the requirements.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 28 Mar 2007, 12:36

Why for the love of God, would you want to have everything installed, just so you can shut things down, because they make your pc slow?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 12:43

It's not the amount of software that slows things down, it's what's running in the background that does!!

I hope that makes sense!!

Most of the software wouldn't be used - it would just lie on the hard drive, until I launch it.

I could install 20 GB of free programs, and that won't slow my PC down. Why? Because it's not running in the background, eating CPU resources.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 28 Mar 2007, 12:50

Ever heard of Linux's journals? It tracks changes and the state of files on your hdd. And BTW loads of stuff that gets installed with Suse run in the background, automatically.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:00

What Linux are you running, Hman?

I'd like to have the full software experience of SUSE.
I'll have to trim the startup list, off course.

As for Linux journals, how much of an impact will it have on performance? I won't touch most of the files anyway.

PS: Why not dump MTN??

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:14

I have no active linux installs right now, as I'm dual booting between Vista and XP now. When I feel comfortable with letting XP go I'll either use Suse or Fedora Core.

I have used Red Hat 9, Ubuntu ( The first release, and 6.05 LTS ), Mandriva 2006, Suse 10.1, Fedora Core5.

By far I like FC and Suse the most.

As to the performance impact of the jounalling system I don't know, I usually make my Linux partitions fairly small, then I partition the rest of the drive to FAT32, so both Windows and Linux can access the drive.

And, you really won't be missing anything by installing just what you need.

About the MTN business, I have stopped using that sim altogether. Luckily I have a Vodacom contract.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:23

Yeah!! MTN sucks!!

Fedora Core 6 is nice (the first I've tried), but it's too simple - it's like Linux for Dummies. Software is crap. XGL is nice.

SUSE is better - highly customizable, better software.

The only drawback about having all software is that it takes longer to install. Once I trim those daemons, SUSE should be running at full speed. I also downloaded other stuff to help tweak SUSE.

By the way, which file system is best for Linux? SUSE uses reiserfs by default.

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:27

I always use the defaults for each distro.

thEnaileDonE · Post by **thEnaileDonE** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:30

Look at me... I have 17000 apps I haven't even run once... but I might get bored tomorrow and launch this uhm... what the hell is this... wow... I didn't know I had installed that... bbl

BTW... I didn't see Novel claiming that you will get the worlds most blistering pace using the hardware requirements mentioned... i just said it would work...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2007, 13:33

Well that's obvious, given that those are the minumum requirements!

thEnaileDonE · Post by **thEnaileDonE** » 28 Mar 2007, 14:01

shiv wrote:Well that's obvious, given that those are the minumum requirements!

Hahahaha... ok I still don't see the joke...

Moses · Post by **Moses** » 28 Mar 2007, 14:47

Hman wrote:then I partition the rest of the drive to FAT32, so both Windows and Linux can access the drive.

ntfs-3g ?

Hman · Post by **Hman** » 28 Mar 2007, 14:51

I struggle getting Linux to write to NTFS.

Edit: I've also read that that package sometimes causes corruption.

AlphA · Post by **AlphA** » 28 Mar 2007, 15:01

shiv wrote:
AlphA wrote: 2) The speed everyone talks about on Linux is NOT in the GUI - that was added to make the OS easier to use. Try doing number-crunching tasks on Linux (Super PI, video encoding, etc etc)....and compare the results to Windows. On my PC, Linux comes out tops.
Could you * please * give me some results of benchmarks?
If Linux really is that much faster than Windows, then I'll be damned!!!
What's the reason for this increase in speed?
Better optimizations??

See this link for proof. My machine running WinXP SP2 scores 37 seconds and just 27 seconds in Linux. Can't explain why, but its just faster in Linux.

Also, I am not a PC Gamer, but have read documentation illustrating that Windows games (running on Cedega) on Linux actually score more FPS. Havent tested this myself so I cant really back it up.

SirKenshin · Post by **SirKenshin** » 29 Mar 2007, 14:30

AlphA wrote: 1) WinXP is older and was developed to run on much older hardware than we have today. You should be comparing a newer Linux distro to something like Vista, which is more recent.
2) The speed everyone talks about on Linux is NOT in the GUI - that was added to make the OS easier to use. Try doing number-crunching tasks on Linux (Super PI, video encoding, etc etc)....and compare the results to Windows. On my PC, Linux comes out tops.

I agree with these views.

Here are some of my own:
Even by defualt most linux distros add pointless services.
Suse 10.1 is a problem child try Suse 10.2.
if you are worried about speed and you have a good internet connection try kubuntu.
Go to google and lookup linux filesystems to see which one fits you better.
different filesystems, different stengths and weakness.

I have more or less the same specs as shiv and find suse 10.2 fast enough.

Don't know if it is true but it seems like it:
In windows all the data on files and stuff normally gets stored in the same direcory, but linux stores information in its system directories or user's home folders. Basiclly linux accesses the harddrive it is on constantly.
I have two harddrives a 80 and 160 I run the OS's on the 80 and data on the other, I found it helps.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2007, 08:13

I installed SUSE 10.1 with 99.9% of the packages (I removed the ones that were notorious for slowing down the system).

I installed the ATI driver - surprisingly easy and painless to install!

I then disabled about 25% of the services I deemed useless.
SUSE runs quite fast now!!!!
Still slows down here and there, but I'm not complaining.

All I have to do now is try getting XGL to work (it says my gfx card is not in it's database).

AlphA · Post by **AlphA** » 30 Mar 2007, 13:04

SirKenshin · Post by **SirKenshin** » 30 Mar 2007, 14:55

Check what I posted in the Linux Xgl thread

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 May 2007, 15:32

I installed Ubuntu 5 with standard settings, and it's still not as fast as I want it to be!!

This is Ubuntu 5, for heaven's sake...

PCFormat Forum Archive

Why is Linux always sooooo slow??!!

Re: Why is Linux always sooooo slow??!!

Possible solution??

SUSE Requirements

Reply

Reply

Reply

Reply

Reply

Re: Reply

Re: Why is Linux always sooooo slow??!!

Update

Ha!! Ubuntu is even slow!!!!