On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > > experience. > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > > get faster response. > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT video. > > Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my experience, > > which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program is going to > > produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static across the top > > 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these have happened > > this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets > > the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since driver > > debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > > > dos centavos, > > Jack > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words > > > was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, > > > but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do > > > have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to > > > perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux > > > installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > > > > windows > > > > > > ... > > And don't forget the obvious > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL > of OpenOffice. > > So if you are comparing Windows performance in this area, try opening > OpenOffice on Desktop 2 and just ticking it on the taskbar, > > Same for Konqueror/Mozilla/Phoenix/Opera vs MSIE > > That is not to say there are not slower areas in linux. Video drivers are > a problem (strange, Windows doesn't write video drivers), and of course the > overhead in maintaining decent security is there by design in linux. > > My own results, on my own equipment, do not support your results, but then > I have machines with a LOT of memory which linux uses and Windows does not. > > Civileme I bet your network is correctly setup and tweaked, and his /etc/host file is empty too
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
