Re: slooooooow
On Sun 11 Aug 2002 22:58, Frank Van Damme wrote: > On Saturday 10 August 2002 15:37, Josep Febrer wrote: > > A Divendres 09 Agost 2002 22:18, John Gay va escriure: > > > choosing a window manager that > > > didn't try to use excesive amounts of memory would yield much better > > > results. > > I'm running windowmaker, which is light and fast and still usable. One of > the best all purpose wm's around imho. I thought prelinking was more useful > than what you describe - I though gentoo was using prelinking allready, > with gcc 3.1? > Well, have a read for yourself here: http://objprelink.sourceforge.net/ The code's own author states Recent versions of the GNU tools now contain a feature that replicates the benefits of objprelink1 using a different approach. Chances are that you have it, and therefore do not need objprelink. Follow this link to check if you have them. There is a new hack named objprelink2 that provides an additional 50% reduction of the runtime linking speed. Runtime linking, however, has become a much smaller part of the total application startup time. That is no longer an obvious speed improvement in KDE. So have a read, but I think you'll be disapointed. > > Try Equinox you can find at http://ede.sourceforge.net is the fastest > > desktop that I have seen on Linux. I recommend you to try the 1.0 beta is > > very fast, and compiles in a short time. > > And that is the closest-to-windows 95 wm I've seen so far :) Closer than KDE ;-) I've never looked at Equinox, so I can't say, but for small, low memory desktop, I've found xfce to be great! And it's about a different from Windows as you can get. It's based on CDE instead, but it's small and infinately configurable. It even supports Drag-N-Drop. The page also points out a tight little browser. Only 300K source. It's still alpha code, but I've found it to be quite stable on my 200Mhz LFS box. The only down side is it does not support passwords via http at all. I had to disable the security for cups and I can't use my SmoothWall from it at all. But I've had no other problems with it. Cheers, John Gay
Re: slooooooow
On Saturday 10 August 2002 15:37, Josep Febrer wrote: > A Divendres 09 Agost 2002 22:18, John Gay va escriure: > > choosing a window manager that > > didn't try to use excesive amounts of memory would yield much better > > results. I'm running windowmaker, which is light and fast and still usable. One of the best all purpose wm's around imho. I thought prelinking was more useful than what you describe - I though gentoo was using prelinking allready, with gcc 3.1? > Try Equinox you can find at http://ede.sourceforge.net is the fastest > desktop that I have seen on Linux. I recommend you to try the 1.0 beta is > very fast, and compiles in a short time. And that is the closest-to-windows 95 wm I've seen so far :) -- Frank Van Damme homepage: www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m9917684 jabber (=IM): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
A Divendres 09 Agost 2002 22:18, John Gay va escriure: > choosing a window manager that > didn't try to use excesive amounts of memory would yield much better > results. Try Equinox you can find at http://ede.sourceforge.net is the fastest desktop that I have seen on Linux. I recommend you to try the 1.0 beta is very fast, and compiles in a short time.
Re: slooooooow
On Fri 09 Aug 2002 18:23, Frank Van Damme wrote: > On Saturday 27 July 2002 22:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > > Yow > > Something I just thought about: > > There seems to be a way to do library prelinking on gnu/linux to shorten > startup times of large applications. Is it possible to do that on debian? > It would take away some of my pain ;-) objprelink is only useful for older versions of GCC and then can cause more problems than it solves. I've looked into this extensively while building a Linux From Scratch box and decided it would not help. To take advantage of it, first you need to build objprelink Then you need to modify the QT sources to call prelinking during the compile. Then you have to re-compile ALL of KDE to take advantage of what will amount to NO speed improvements at all, since QT and KDE for Debian are allready compiled with a newer version of GCC. You would be looking at upto a week, on your hardware for nothing. On the other hand, installing more memory and choosing a window manager that didn't try to use excesive amounts of memory would yield much better results. Cheers, John Gay
Re: slooooooow
On Saturday 27 July 2002 22:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > Yow Something I just thought about: There seems to be a way to do library prelinking on gnu/linux to shorten startup times of large applications. Is it possible to do that on debian? It would take away some of my pain ;-) -- Frank Van Damme homepage: www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m9917684 jabber (=IM): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Maybe you meant for this to go to the list? As I'm not the one having the problem :-) > Make sure you have dma enabled on your harddrive ( man hdparm ). > > Cheers, > Sean. - -- A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in. --Kim Alm, a.s.r -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9RUjlEHLN/FXAbC0RAjxeAJ9tzY8HgyX0TGCcdCvS7Hl14xax2wCgx0Jq uH/NZO38tEq3ULM2UlU5AbI= =Pnfo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 29 July 2002 04:52 am, Frank Van Damme wrote: > On Saturday 27 July 2002 23:24, John Gay wrote: > > On Sat 27 Jul 2002 21:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > > > Yow > > > > > > Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the > > > one I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. > > > > This is your problem ^^^ > > > > KDE requires quite a large amount of memory to run. If you consider that > > X takes at least 16M to itself that does not leave much for KDE to use. > > > > My daughter is running KDE2.1 on a 166PentiumMMX with 64M and get > > 'useable' performance from it. I would not even like to try running KDE > > in less than 64M. > > I would rather say that the bottleneck is the software :-) . I remember > having konqueror, kmail, pan (gnome stuff), kword, then some instant > messaging clients and a ton of Eterms open. Now I can bring the box to it's > knees with just kmail alone. Basically, something's wrong. This should not be happening. KDE3 *is* leaner than KDE2, with (iirc) only a couple exceptions, having to do with fonts (aa, true-type, something like that). Maybe try playing around with that (en/dis-abling AA, not using tt, etc). Good luck! - -- A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in. --Kim Alm, a.s.r -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9RUT5EHLN/FXAbC0RAssmAJ9TdBhkcbMMVSpSdSzSZkK7MjrRBACgoRvQ 5qZg7xmNUoJ7yDhaPKahND8= =Ckhp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
On Saturday 27 July 2002 23:24, John Gay wrote: > On Sat 27 Jul 2002 21:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > > Yow > > > > Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the > > one I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. > > This is your problem ^^^ > > KDE requires quite a large amount of memory to run. If you consider that X > takes at least 16M to itself that does not leave much for KDE to use. > > My daughter is running KDE2.1 on a 166PentiumMMX with 64M and get 'useable' > performance from it. I would not even like to try running KDE in less than > 64M. I would rather say that the bottleneck is the software :-) . I remember having konqueror, kmail, pan (gnome stuff), kword, then some instant messaging clients and a ton of Eterms open. Now I can bring the box to it's knees with just kmail alone. > > I just > > couldn't believe my eyes. I thought kde got faster with 3.0, at least > > that's what the kde guys promised us. Some stats, taken on my system > > running enlightenment 0.16, xfree86 4.2 and a minimum of background tasks > > Here is another ^^^ problem. Enlightenment is very resource intensive as > well. Maybe even more so than KDE proper. Mixing this WITH KDE apps on a > memory-starved box is jsut asking for problems. Are you sure you don't work I think this is a mistake commonly made about E. E is just as resource-hungry as you make it. With 2 desktops and a *simple* theme and wallpaper it takes about 2 or 3 megs more then windowmaker with the same eyecandy (read: as little eye-candy as possible). > for that group that 'proved' M$ ran faster than Linux by patching M$ for > performance and disabling every feature on Linux? You mean enabling? I am asking that to myself every now and then :-) . No problem with minimum requirements going up, and off course I just don't try to do this with windows 98 or 2k, which need 64 megs just to boot them up. Well actually I did. But I don't want to compare with a platform which is made heavier artificially. Heck, watching a stupid program clog up the performance on a box with 50.331.648 bytes of mem running a system which is supposed to expand the life cycle of boxes by a few years just scares me. If they could make programs run fast 3 years ago, why can't the same programs run at the same speed now? I was especcially astonished because I ran kde1 and kde2 on this box as well as kde3. One of the biggest issues with kde2 was the performance, so a lot of effort was put into making it faster - so I was wondering wether these experimental packages might be compiled with a badly-chosen version of gcc or anything. It's not only the mem you see - I can swap to a reletivaly fast disk and cpu usage is high. It's not that I use stuff like mosfet's theme (my dad has a Xp theme and ditto mozilla IE skin however ;-) ) > > like cups and 2 Eterms: [...] > > Just *unbearable*. I have yet to start thinking about what running a > > fullblown kde session on this box will do. I remember having 7 apps like > > kword, xmms, kmail,... open at the same time and still enjoying it. Ok > > kmail was never fast but can anyone recommend me a good DE or compiler > > please :-) > > First things first. Get some more memory. This generation of box should be > able to handle at least 64M without complaining. I know that's easier said > than done, but memory is the key to speed. Without enough memory even a P4 > will run like a dog. Off course. Surely I upgraded it when I started gnu/linux for the same reason: kde did not really work well with only 16 megs ;-) > For alt. Desktops, XFCE is extremely light-weight, very configurable and > drag-N-drop aware. If you've never seen CDE before it might take a little > getting used to, but getting rid of Enlightenment and using XFCE instead > will give enormous improvement. Once you've got the QT and KDE libs, most > of your KDE apps should still work, though XFCE is NOT KDE aware, what ever > that means any more. That "kde aware" means you can use it to run with kde instead of kwin I think. > If you want to go the self-compiled route I can tell you, from experience > QTlibs took over 48 Hours to build on a 200Mhz PentiumMMX with a similar > amount of memory. KDE libs take even longer. Again, memory is the key here. > GCC tries to use large hash tables in memory to reduce I/O. However, if you > are still willing to spend upto a week 'round the clock' there are many > object pre-linking optimizations that can be used with QT and KDE, though > they can be dodgy. They have been known to just not work on certain > hardware, so you might end up spending a week compiling something that will > not even run. YMMV. Uhhu. I see. > Hope this expains a few things for you. > Cheers, > > John Gay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
Give a try to IceWM is good looking, *very* fast and user frendly. It was usable in my old 486 with 24 RAM box Any way KDE rocks! Good luck Hirs Frank Van Damme wrote: Yow Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the one I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. I just couldn't believe my eyes. I thought kde got faster with 3.0, at least that's what the kde guys promised us. Some stats, taken on my system running enlightenment 0.16, xfree86 4.2 and a minimum of background tasks like cups and 2 Eterms: - opening a "new message" window in kmail: 10 seconds - starting konqueror: about 5 minutes - starting kmail: must be over 2 minutes. - selecting an other message in this mailing list (800 messages): about 2 secs - scrolling through theheader pane: an estimated 3 fps - starting the stupidest program on earth, ksnapshot: 25 secs - average cpu usage reading emails: 80%. - megs of swap mem used: 50. Just *unbearable*. I have yet to start thinking about what running a fullblown kde session on this box will do. I remember having 7 apps like kword, xmms, kmail,... open at the same time and still enjoying it. Ok kmail was never fast but can anyone recommend me a good DE or compiler please :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slooooooow
On Sat 27 Jul 2002 21:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > Yow > > Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the one > I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. This is your problem ^^^ KDE requires quite a large amount of memory to run. If you consider that X takes at least 16M to itself that does not leave much for KDE to use. My daughter is running KDE2.1 on a 166PentiumMMX with 64M and get 'useable' performance from it. I would not even like to try running KDE in less than 64M. > I just > couldn't believe my eyes. I thought kde got faster with 3.0, at least > that's what the kde guys promised us. Some stats, taken on my system > running enlightenment 0.16, xfree86 4.2 and a minimum of background tasks Here is another ^^^ problem. Enlightenment is very resource intensive as well. Maybe even more so than KDE proper. Mixing this WITH KDE apps on a memory-starved box is jsut asking for problems. Are you sure you don't work for that group that 'proved' M$ ran faster than Linux by patching M$ for performance and disabling every feature on Linux? > like cups and 2 Eterms: > > - opening a "new message" window in kmail: 10 seconds > - starting konqueror: about 5 minutes > - starting kmail: must be over 2 minutes. > - selecting an other message in this mailing list (800 messages): about 2 > secs - scrolling through theheader pane: an estimated 3 fps > - starting the stupidest program on earth, ksnapshot: 25 secs > - average cpu usage reading emails: 80%. > - megs of swap mem used: 50. > > Just *unbearable*. I have yet to start thinking about what running a > fullblown kde session on this box will do. I remember having 7 apps like > kword, xmms, kmail,... open at the same time and still enjoying it. Ok > kmail was never fast but can anyone recommend me a good DE or compiler > please :-) First things first. Get some more memory. This generation of box should be able to handle at least 64M without complaining. I know that's easier said than done, but memory is the key to speed. Without enough memory even a P4 will run like a dog. For alt. Desktops, XFCE is extremely light-weight, very configurable and drag-N-drop aware. If you've never seen CDE before it might take a little getting used to, but getting rid of Enlightenment and using XFCE instead will give enormous improvement. Once you've got the QT and KDE libs, most of your KDE apps should still work, though XFCE is NOT KDE aware, what ever that means any more. If you want to go the self-compiled route I can tell you, from experience QTlibs took over 48 Hours to build on a 200Mhz PentiumMMX with a similar amount of memory. KDE libs take even longer. Again, memory is the key here. GCC tries to use large hash tables in memory to reduce I/O. However, if you are still willing to spend upto a week 'round the clock' there are many object pre-linking optimizations that can be used with QT and KDE, though they can be dodgy. They have been known to just not work on certain hardware, so you might end up spending a week compiling something that will not even run. YMMV. Hope this expains a few things for you. Cheers, John Gay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
slooooooow
Yow Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the one I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. I just couldn't believe my eyes. I thought kde got faster with 3.0, at least that's what the kde guys promised us. Some stats, taken on my system running enlightenment 0.16, xfree86 4.2 and a minimum of background tasks like cups and 2 Eterms: - opening a "new message" window in kmail: 10 seconds - starting konqueror: about 5 minutes - starting kmail: must be over 2 minutes. - selecting an other message in this mailing list (800 messages): about 2 secs - scrolling through theheader pane: an estimated 3 fps - starting the stupidest program on earth, ksnapshot: 25 secs - average cpu usage reading emails: 80%. - megs of swap mem used: 50. Just *unbearable*. I have yet to start thinking about what running a fullblown kde session on this box will do. I remember having 7 apps like kword, xmms, kmail,... open at the same time and still enjoying it. Ok kmail was never fast but can anyone recommend me a good DE or compiler please :-) -- homepage: www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m9917684 jabber (=IM): [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
