I would have to agree on this one. RL is just as fast as Win2k if you add all the neat features. WinXP is an overbloated Monster on my AMD 1.2G with 256DDR and ATA100 system. I can measure about a 15% decrease in speed between Win2K and WinXP due to all the eye candy. I have a dell Optiplex PIII 700MHz system that seems to run circles around my 1.2G system and thats with Mandrake 8.1 running with the raw installation kernel. If you want to compare RL to a Windows operating system, then you must compare it with Win2K/XP. Take an older system and compare Win95 with WinME and you will see Win95 go much faster. Does that mean that Win95 is better than WinME? This is not meant to flame, just to educate on what Linux is and what it is capable of.
You can always use a different Window Manager (Blackbox is very reliable) but you have to understand that you give up some of the "pretty cool eye candy" when you do that. Thats the beauty of Linux though, you have a 'choice' at how you want to run your system. PeACE Chris On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 23:10, Ahrenstorff, Rodd wrote: > This distro is not shipping with object-prelinked RPMs and may not be > optimized for all processors. However, most Linux distibutions aren't. > Running RPMs optimized for i686 processors on your Pentium II won't help the > situation any. So most distros don't perform the optimization process for > every included package. They can't predict what processor your using. > However, you can download prelinked and optimized RPMs from Texstar at > www.pclinuxonline.com. > > Another issue often brought up by persons new to Linux concerns the > comparison of Win98 and their new Linux distro. Often they say it is > slower. Well Windows 98 is four years old! The GUI is prehistoric by KDE > standards. With all the "eye candy" provided in the new Linux desktops a > 233Mhz computer will run a little slow. But install Windows XP and you'll > get the same results. I personally have installed Mandrake 8.1, Redhat 7.2, > Elx Linux pre1, Redmond 44, and Win2k on my main home PC (1.3Ghz AMD, 256MB > DDR RAM, ATA 100, etc..). There is little difference in speed between all > of them. I have also installed them all on my spare PC (233Mhz PII, 256MB > RAM, ATA 33, etc..) and again they run about the same speed. > > If you use older equipment you need to use "lighter" windows managers with > less "eye candy". There are many available in Linux. Unfortunately, old > hardware and "light weight" is not the future of the desktop market. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lanny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:59 PM > To: RedmondLunix > Subject: [rl-users] Redmond linux slow? > > > I have heard alot of people say that RedmondLinux is slow. Is this correct > and if so why? > > Lanny > > - > -- > rl-users list. To leave, send "unsubscribe" without quotes in body of > message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - > -- > rl-users list. To leave, send "unsubscribe" without quotes in body of > message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - -- rl-users list. To leave, send "unsubscribe" without quotes in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
