On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, 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?
There you have it... Gnome or KDE. To be honest I haven't had any experience with KDE the last year or so, but I do know that Gnome is really becomming dissapointing in terms of speed. I first started using Linux which Redhat 6.1 or something, and in those days Gnome was a simple but efficient desktop. These days, especially since Mandrake's encorporation of Gnome with Nautilus, it has become a sad story. Sorry if I offend anyone, this is not ment to raise anyone's hair, but Nautilus is more usefull as an egg-timer.. damn it's so slow. Yes it looks good, just like Gnome does, but speed and efficiency is what I believe Linux is about. I have been using Fluxbox for the last 5 months now or so, and it's so damn fast compared to Gnome. Simple and Sweet. This is not an andertisment for Fluxbox, as there are many simplified Desktop managers around. Maybe give another one a try, and see if your performance increases? Just my 2.2 Euro-cents ;-) Greetings Ralph > An older HP Vectra with a 200 MHz Pent.; 80 meg RAM; two harddrives; > integrated video. This machine has had Windows 2000 Server, NT Server 4, > Linux 8.2, and currently NT and 8.2 on it. The difference in operation > (speed wise) between the two MS systems (not trying to praise MS here) and > Linux is like night and day. Linux is excruciatingly slow. From the time I > click on an icon to do anything, that can be running Control Center, or any > of the installed apps off of the Linux CD until the app is up on screen is > several times longer than a comparable app (Explorer or Control Panel, for > example) under Windows. > > Oh yes, previous installs with 8.1, on this machine and 8.1 plus Red Hat on > another and much faster machine produced the same comparisons. > > Ideas? -- Homepage: http://tuxpower.f2g.net/
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
