Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
JoeHill wrote: It seems to be sending three copies of your mail to the list, too! Maybe that's what's slowing your system down... ;-) :-) raf Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
Ron Hunter-Duvar wrote: I never used Mdk 9, but I can tell you I was impressed with the speed of 10.0, both CE and Official. I revived an ancient (~6 years old) NT machine, Pentium II 400MHz, graphics card so old it's no longer supported by the vendor. I was surprised how responsive it is on such an old machine - practically instantaneous. It gets sluggish only if there are heavy background processes running, but that's to be expected. I'm not saying 10.0 is slow, I'm just saying it is slower than 9.2. I believe the 2.6 kernel has been optimized for server environment, not desktop. Have you tried running top to see if there's something else chewing up your cpu? I've had some runaway kde processes a couple of times (most notably konqueror on certain web sites). 3D programs also kill my performance, because I only have s/w rendering. I use IceWM, it's much lighter than KDE or Gnome. No, nothing is eating up CPU, it's just slower. raffaele Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
Ron Hunter-Duvar wrote: I never used Mdk 9, but I can tell you I was impressed with the speed of 10.0, both CE and Official. I revived an ancient (~6 years old) NT machine, Pentium II 400MHz, graphics card so old it's no longer supported by the vendor. I was surprised how responsive it is on such an old machine - practically instantaneous. It gets sluggish only if there are heavy background processes running, but that's to be expected. I'm not saying 10.0 is slow, I'm just saying it is slower than 9.2. I believe the 2.6 kernel has been optimized for server environment, not desktop. Have you tried running top to see if there's something else chewing up your cpu? I've had some runaway kde processes a couple of times (most notably konqueror on certain web sites). 3D programs also kill my performance, because I only have s/w rendering. I use IceWM, it's much lighter than KDE or Gnome. No, nothing is eating up CPU, it's just slower. raffaele Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
Ron Hunter-Duvar wrote: I never used Mdk 9, but I can tell you I was impressed with the speed of 10.0, both CE and Official. I revived an ancient (~6 years old) NT machine, Pentium II 400MHz, graphics card so old it's no longer supported by the vendor. I was surprised how responsive it is on such an old machine - practically instantaneous. It gets sluggish only if there are heavy background processes running, but that's to be expected. I'm not saying 10.0 is slow, I'm just saying it is slower than 9.2. I believe the 2.6 kernel has been optimized for server environment, not desktop. Have you tried running top to see if there's something else chewing up your cpu? I've had some runaway kde processes a couple of times (most notably konqueror on certain web sites). 3D programs also kill my performance, because I only have s/w rendering. I use IceWM, it's much lighter than KDE or Gnome. No, nothing is eating up CPU, it's just slower. raffaele Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:15:30 +0200 Raffaele BELARDI disseminated the following: I never used Mdk 9, but I can tell you I was impressed with the speed of 10.0, both CE and Official. I revived an ancient (~6 years old) NT machine, Pentium II 400MHz, graphics card so old it's no longer supported by the vendor. I was surprised how responsive it is on such an old machine - practically instantaneous. It gets sluggish only if there are heavy background processes running, but that's to be expected. I'm not saying 10.0 is slow, I'm just saying it is slower than 9.2. I believe the 2.6 kernel has been optimized for server environment, not desktop. Have you tried running top to see if there's something else chewing up your cpu? I've had some runaway kde processes a couple of times (most notably konqueror on certain web sites). 3D programs also kill my performance, because I only have s/w rendering. I use IceWM, it's much lighter than KDE or Gnome. No, nothing is eating up CPU, it's just slower. It seems to be sending three copies of your mail to the list, too! Maybe that's what's slowing your system down... ;-) -- JoeHill RLU #282046 / www.orderinchaos.org Kernel 2.4.22-21.tmb.1mdk Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (FiveStar) for i586 +++ 12:36:25 up 1 day, 1:16, 8 users, load average: 0.75, 0.37, 0.27 +++ A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners. -- Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters, May 15 2004 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
John Drouhard wrote: On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 09:55 +0200, Raffaele BELARDI wrote: Simple test: same movies that in 9.2 played fine and smooth in 10.0 skip LOTS of frames What video card do you have? If it's an nvidia card, you might need to Nope, it's an ATI Radeon 7xxx (don't remember exact model). Next I will try installing the 9.2 version of mplayer into 10.0, just to rule out kernel issues. If it doesn't do the job, I'll have to go back to 9.2 :-( Don't install the 9.2 version of mplayer on 10.0, there will be dependency problems. Yes, I tried and gave up due to the dependencies issues (didn't want to spend too much time on it). Now I'm back to 9.2 :-( accessing a CD in 10.0 eats up all CPU, while in 9.2 it was only using a small fraction - like if it was not using DMA, but DMA is enabled for all drives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the default mandrake kernels not include dma support? If they do, then I'm not sure what to do about the You are wrong :-) My understanding is that MDK (or the Linux kernel, not sure which) enables DMA for a drive by default, then disables it if it detects errors on drive access. On my other box, a 10.0 system, hdparm reports DMA enabled for the HDs, disabled for the CDROM (an old drive which I suspect does not support it). I remember somebody defining 10.0 speed daemon so I was quite negatively impressed by my results. Has anybody noticed such bad performance? It is a speed daemon :). No but really, its fast. Ok, demon :-). Anyway, I have to confirm my first impression. The 10.0 box is slower to react to GUI, slower to rip CDs, slower to mp3-encode them. Not much, but it can be appreciated. BTW, I got a confirmation on the first web article I googled: 2.6 better for server, equal or less than 2.4 for dektop. (http://www.2cpu.com/articles/98_1.html) bye, raffaele Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
RE: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
For the day I had 10 running (many moons ago) it was noticeably faster than 9.2. The gui was nearly there before I clicked the button or hovered over the icon, I didn't do very much in it though before I rebooted and lost X. It was like I said noticeably faster. Tony. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Raffaele BELARDI Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2? John Drouhard wrote: On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 09:55 +0200, Raffaele BELARDI wrote: Simple test: same movies that in 9.2 played fine and smooth in 10.0 skip LOTS of frames What video card do you have? If it's an nvidia card, you might need to Nope, it's an ATI Radeon 7xxx (don't remember exact model). Next I will try installing the 9.2 version of mplayer into 10.0, just to rule out kernel issues. If it doesn't do the job, I'll have to go back to 9.2 :-( Don't install the 9.2 version of mplayer on 10.0, there will be dependency problems. Yes, I tried and gave up due to the dependencies issues (didn't want to spend too much time on it). Now I'm back to 9.2 :-( accessing a CD in 10.0 eats up all CPU, while in 9.2 it was only using a small fraction - like if it was not using DMA, but DMA is enabled for all drives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the default mandrake kernels not include dma support? If they do, then I'm not sure what to do about the You are wrong :-) My understanding is that MDK (or the Linux kernel, not sure which) enables DMA for a drive by default, then disables it if it detects errors on drive access. On my other box, a 10.0 system, hdparm reports DMA enabled for the HDs, disabled for the CDROM (an old drive which I suspect does not support it). I remember somebody defining 10.0 speed daemon so I was quite negatively impressed by my results. Has anybody noticed such bad performance? It is a speed daemon :). No but really, its fast. Ok, demon :-). Anyway, I have to confirm my first impression. The 10.0 box is slower to react to GUI, slower to rip CDs, slower to mp3-encode them. Not much, but it can be appreciated. BTW, I got a confirmation on the first web article I googled: 2.6 better for server, equal or less than 2.4 for dektop. (http://www.2cpu.com/articles/98_1.html) bye, raffaele -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Business Computer Projects - Disclaimer -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- This message, and any associated attachment is confidential. If you have recieved it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any way, and notify either the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not necessarily the views of Business Computer Projects Ltd., unless specifically stated. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that emails and their attachments are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient(s) to verify the integrity of such emails. Business Computer Projects Ltd BCP House 151 Charles Street Stockport Cheshire SK1 3JY Tel: +44 (0)161 355-3000 Fax: +44 (0)161 355-3001 Web: http://www.bcpsoftware.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
On May 14, 2004 01:55, Raffaele BELARDI wrote: ... I remember somebody defining 10.0 speed daemon so I was quite negatively impressed by my results. Has anybody noticed such bad performance? raffaele I never used Mdk 9, but I can tell you I was impressed with the speed of 10.0, both CE and Official. I revived an ancient (~6 years old) NT machine, Pentium II 400MHz, graphics card so old it's no longer supported by the vendor. I was surprised how responsive it is on such an old machine - practically instantaneous. It gets sluggish only if there are heavy background processes running, but that's to be expected. Have you tried running top to see if there's something else chewing up your cpu? I've had some runaway kde processes a couple of times (most notably konqueror on certain web sites). 3D programs also kill my performance, because I only have s/w rendering. -- Ron Hunter-Duvar ronhd at users dot sourceforge dot net Opinions expressed here are all mine. Rights to use these opinions are granted under the GNU GPL. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 09:55 +0200, Raffaele BELARDI wrote: Simple test: same movies that in 9.2 played fine and smooth in 10.0 skip LOTS of frames. I tried with mplayer, xine and totem, always the same result. Yes, it's an old mobo (AMD K6-2/550), but in 9.2 it did its job. What video card do you have? If it's an nvidia card, you might need to install the nvidia drivers from http://www.nvidia.com/ So I successfully installed the 2.4.25 kernel provided on the 10.0 cd, but was unable to configure the ISA PNP audio card. The isapnp utility configures and enables the card without errors, but modprobe snd-azt2320 exits with an error (no azt2320 card found). Card works fine in 9.2 and 10.0 with 2.6 kernel. Next I will try installing the 9.2 version of mplayer into 10.0, just to rule out kernel issues. If it doesn't do the job, I'll have to go back to 9.2 :-( Don't install the 9.2 version of mplayer on 10.0, there will be dependency problems. Also, while burning a CD the system does not respond to any command. It's not frozen (icewm responds fine), but application it will not even start to load it until the cd burning is finished. And, accessing a CD in 10.0 eats up all CPU, while in 9.2 it was only using a small fraction - like if it was not using DMA, but DMA is enabled for all drives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the default mandrake kernels not include dma support? If they do, then I'm not sure what to do about the cd accessing problem. As for the system not responding while burning cd's - there is a way to lower the priority of the process, but I can't remember what it is. Also, I know for a fact the default mandrake kernels DO NOT compile preemptible support. If you know how to compile kernels, may I suggest compiling a 2.6 kernel with preemptible support and dma support both included? I remember somebody defining 10.0 speed daemon so I was quite negatively impressed by my results. Has anybody noticed such bad performance? It is a speed daemon :). No but really, its fast. HTH, John -- Tue May 18 16:47:58 CDT 2004 Mandrakelinux release 10.1 (Cooker) for i586 -- Registered Linux User # 315649 Registered Machine # 201001 If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. -- W.E. Hickson Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] 10.0 slower than 9.2?
Simple test: same movies that in 9.2 played fine and smooth in 10.0 skip LOTS of frames. I tried with mplayer, xine and totem, always the same result. Yes, it's an old mobo (AMD K6-2/550), but in 9.2 it did its job. So I successfully installed the 2.4.25 kernel provided on the 10.0 cd, but was unable to configure the ISA PNP audio card. The isapnp utility configures and enables the card without errors, but modprobe snd-azt2320 exits with an error (no azt2320 card found). Card works fine in 9.2 and 10.0 with 2.6 kernel. Next I will try installing the 9.2 version of mplayer into 10.0, just to rule out kernel issues. If it doesn't do the job, I'll have to go back to 9.2 :-( Also, while burning a CD the system does not respond to any command. It's not frozen (icewm responds fine), but application it will not even start to load it until the cd burning is finished. And, accessing a CD in 10.0 eats up all CPU, while in 9.2 it was only using a small fraction - like if it was not using DMA, but DMA is enabled for all drives. I remember somebody defining 10.0 speed daemon so I was quite negatively impressed by my results. Has anybody noticed such bad performance? raffaele Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
