I understand. It is disappointing, and to me (my humble opinion) counters the claims of Linux being a good choice on more modest hardware. At least that was always the impression I had.
The other machine I had tried it on some months ago is a much faster one and at the time had 256 meg. of RAM and a much bigger harddrive partition on which I was dual booting between Linux and Win 2000Pro. I like the full featured aspect of KDE and though I haven't examined Gnome that closely, it looks interesting. I would not want to go to something severely stripped down. Not if I'm ever going to think in terms of a Windows replacement, which I'd like to think of. Dan W. Dooley WB5TKA Bedford, Texas e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: http://www.qsl.net/wb9tka May Goddes love blest ye alle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [newbie] Speed differences between OSs > Dan W. Dooley wrote: > > Can someone explain to me why Linux under KDE or Gnome would run so much > > slower than Windows on the same machine? > > > > > > Ideas? > > I won't try to explain -- that would be a major minefield. > > I can confirm that this is not an unexpected result. I have similar > experiences with Win95 and any Linux I've tried. > > My recommendation is get more RAM -- a lot more RAM -- a minimum of 256 > MB. (My standard motherboards of many years only support 128 MB, so > I've replaced a few so far -- the others mostly still run Windows for > several reasons.) > > Another traditional recommendation is to use a lighter weight window > manager than KDE or GNOME, like ICEWM, BlackBox, .... > > Randy Kramer > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
