Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?
- From: Bahram Alinezhad <alineziad yahoo com>
- To: gnome-list gnome org, konq-e kde org, suse-linux-e suse com, penguin0601 earthlink net
- Subject: Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
- In Windows, when the desktop appears, may be some
startup items still running; In SuSE 9.1 you see
similar situation, at least for "kmix" and "hardware"
icons in the system tray! also, a message asking you
about changing your monitor settings cannot be
- With all your explanation, can SuSE 9.1 be 6 times
slower than WinXP? (See the table again.)
- We start a criticism with the vision that it will be
supported by some other members and may be considered
in future versions; Once I feel that its users are
already satisfied with it, I'll keep my opinion for
myself and leave the story to its destiny! In return
to your request, I require you ignore the thread if
you are so intolerant.
Thank you for your notice,
I'll just make a few comments about this and ask that
you move it to the OT list please. Not really solving
SuSE problems talking about things you don't seem to
understand. Of if you do understand them better, you
are just trolling to create a stir. Either way, move
this to OT please.
First of all, you are not comparing apples to apples
and maybe if you understood what you were talking
about more, you could do so or if you do, but decided
not to point out the facts, you are trying to be
deceptive as well. It's certainly another of those
deceptive practices MS does to draw folks in or create
useless discussions such as this. :o)
1. Windows, no matter what flavor, preloads most of
what it needs to run at bootup into ram, therefore
appearing to load things faster.
Windows bootup time in itself is decieving, since it
is programed to load the windows first then process
the init stuff later. That's why even after you see
the desktop, it's not ready to use for several seconds
later. If you were to compare "actual" times, you
would see Windows doesn't fully load for several
seconds, even minutes before becoming fully usable.
Same thing with other programs, Windows loads the
windows first, the rest later thus because the windows
open first, you get the "feeling" they're loading
faster. The actual load times, I think you would find
to be comparable to or slower to a good Linux setup.
2. Knoppix feels faster simply because of the fact
it's running from a ram disk when started.
Try loading something from the cd that's not loaded
into ram and tell us what times you get. I suspect
you'll find load times to be different from a cd.
3. KDE does things differently, actually not only
KDE, in that it loads all the processes first then the
window appears. This, of course, makes it appear
slower in loading when it's actually equal to or
faster than what you see in Windows. Of course, when
you see the window appear in Linux apps they are ready
for use! This is how KDE operates, no matter what
distro it sets on, so MDK, Slackware, Debian are all
going to "feel" about the same.
Try it yourself by checking the performance settings
on Konqueror. Set it to preload just one process into
memory! It loads almost instantaneous for me and it's
ready to use right then!
Unlike Windows, where even preloaded it still has to
start other things well after the window appears to be
ready to use.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
] [Thread Prev