Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
>>> "Josh" == Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I started Josh> recompiling the kernel a couple of times, and each time it Josh> failed (I forget why) after choosing to save the new kernel, Josh> so in /usr/src there are "linux-2.2.13" and Josh> "linux-2.2.13.old" folders, and the 2 files generated by Josh> make menuconfig (one is .old) So should I delete these extra Josh> files and start again from the beginning? Thanks! -Josh >> What kernel are you running now (output of 'uname -r')? Josh> 2.2.13-7mdk -Josh Sounds top me that you may safely delete the directory "linux-2.2.13.old" and its contents. -- Mike Fieschko, West Orange, NJ, USA X-Mailer: XEmacs 21.1, VM 6.75 and random-sig.el Kernel 2.2.14-15mdk http://www.viconet.com/fieschko/home.htm Jan 14 St Hilary or St Felix "Mediaeval man endured frightful fasts; but none of them would have dreamed of seriously proposing that nobody anywhere should ever have wine anymore." [G.K. Chesterton, in The Well and the Shallows]
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Morris Walton wrote: > > some form of the ps command i suppose > > Morris Walton wrote: > > > > Is there an easy way (ie command-line) to see what processes are > > eating into cpu occupancy? Click the K / then System / then taskmanager, It Will give you some info on what is running, performance and so on. Mark -- Mark Fitzgerald (0-0) Campobello Island, NB, Canada
RE: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
You can turn virtual screens off if you use xf86config or rather it gives the option of using a virtual screen when you set the resolutions that are available for each colour depth. xf86config is not a GUI it is text based and offers more options than Xconfigurator. -Original Message- From: Josh McCaffrey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 13 January 2000 18:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? Try "Xconfigurator" at the command prompt. After you choose your video card, monitor specs, etc., try choosing more than one resolution, then later, you can switch resolutions by hitting <+>. Use the (+) on the num pad. Mine is set at 1024x768 and 800x600, but whenever I switch to 800x600, I get a "virtual screen", which may be what you're describing. eg: if you move the mouse past the edge of your desktop, you can see the rest of it, but not all at once? I don't care for the virtual screen either. -Josh JAMIL HUSSAIN wrote: > josh > > i installed linux on my machine, but the resolution is set incorrectly, i > cant see all the screen, what caommand do i use to change the res. > > >From: Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? > >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:13:41 + > > > > > >I think it all depends on how much extra support is compiled into your > >kernel that you're not using or maybe during install when you chose > >services you want started at boot time you chose alot you're not using > >either. Linux takes a little tweaking to get type of setup you want, but > >it's very flexible, and once you're happy w/ your performance, you can bet > >the farm nothing is going to change unless you change it or your HDD gets > >killed. You just have to do some reading, and mess around a little to get > >desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform > >well for everybody straight out of the box. > >Viel Gluck! > >-Josh > > > >Hugh Semmler wrote: > > > > > Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least > > > twice as fast as win98. > > > > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > > > michael dolan > > > -- > > > "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere." > > __ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
RE: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Xconfigurator or xf86config -Original Message- From: JAMIL HUSSAIN [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 13 January 2000 18:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? josh i installed linux on my machine, but the resolution is set incorrectly, i cant see all the screen, what caommand do i use to change the res. >From: Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:13:41 + > > >I think it all depends on how much extra support is compiled into your >kernel that you're not using or maybe during install when you chose >services you want started at boot time you chose alot you're not using >either. Linux takes a little tweaking to get type of setup you want, but >it's very flexible, and once you're happy w/ your performance, you can bet >the farm nothing is going to change unless you change it or your HDD gets >killed. You just have to do some reading, and mess around a little to get >desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform >well for everybody straight out of the box. >Viel Gluck! >-Josh > >Hugh Semmler wrote: > > > Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least > > twice as fast as win98. > > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > michael dolan > > -- > > "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere." __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
> > I started > Josh> recompiling the kernel a couple of times, and each time it > Josh> failed (I forget why) after choosing to save the new kernel, > Josh> so in /usr/src there are "linux-2.2.13" and > Josh> "linux-2.2.13.old" folders, and the 2 files generated by > Josh> make menuconfig (one is .old) So should I delete these extra > Josh> files and start again from the beginning? Thanks! -Josh > > What kernel are you running now (output of 'uname -r')? 2.2.13-7mdk -Josh
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
type "top" - Original Message - From: Morris Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? > Is there an easy way (ie command-line) to see what processes are > eating into cpu occupancy? > > morris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Alan Shoemaker wrote: > > > > Elizabeth/michaeljust a guess, but did you use lnx4win to > > install Linux? If so, then a "real" installation (where Linux > > has it's own partitions on the hard drive) of Linux will greatly > > speed up the system performance. On the other hand if my guess > > was wrong, here's another guess. Do you possibly have services > > running that you are not using. These extra services can take > > up resources unnecessarily and slow things down as well. This > > could apply even if my first guess was correct. > > > > Alan > > > > Elizabeth Dolan wrote: > > > > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > michael dolan
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
some form of the ps command i suppose Morris Walton wrote: > > Is there an easy way (ie command-line) to see what processes are > eating into cpu occupancy? > > morris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Alan Shoemaker wrote: > > > > Elizabeth/michaeljust a guess, but did you use lnx4win to > > install Linux? If so, then a "real" installation (where Linux > > has it's own partitions on the hard drive) of Linux will greatly > > speed up the system performance. On the other hand if my guess > > was wrong, here's another guess. Do you possibly have services > > running that you are not using. These extra services can take > > up resources unnecessarily and slow things down as well. This > > could apply even if my first guess was correct. > > > > Alan > > > > Elizabeth Dolan wrote: > > > > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > michael dolan
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Is there an easy way (ie command-line) to see what processes are eating into cpu occupancy? morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alan Shoemaker wrote: > > Elizabeth/michaeljust a guess, but did you use lnx4win to > install Linux? If so, then a "real" installation (where Linux > has it's own partitions on the hard drive) of Linux will greatly > speed up the system performance. On the other hand if my guess > was wrong, here's another guess. Do you possibly have services > running that you are not using. These extra services can take > up resources unnecessarily and slow things down as well. This > could apply even if my first guess was correct. > > Alan > > Elizabeth Dolan wrote: > > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > is that meant to be the case?? > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > michael dolan
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Elizabeth/michaeljust a guess, but did you use lnx4win to install Linux? If so, then a "real" installation (where Linux has it's own partitions on the hard drive) of Linux will greatly speed up the system performance. On the other hand if my guess was wrong, here's another guess. Do you possibly have services running that you are not using. These extra services can take up resources unnecessarily and slow things down as well. This could apply even if my first guess was correct. Alan Elizabeth Dolan wrote: > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > is that meant to be the case?? > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > michael dolan
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
>>> "Josh" == Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Josh> Seth Gibson wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Josh McCaffrey wrote: > desired results. >> There has never been any intention to make Linux perform > well >> for everybody straight out of the box. Tho i think we are >> seeing that change more and more with Things like lizard and >> such. . .me personally, when i installed mdk the first time it >> worked great. . .of course alot of my hardware is so old, >> linux was probably very happy with my machine(:-D Josh> Yeah, me, too! If I did have W98 on my box, I'm sure I Josh> would see a real drag in performance. I have not built a Josh> new kernel yet due to time constraints, and the fact that Josh> L-M 6.1 has performed very nicely for me out of the box. Josh> I'm sure that when I do trim down the stock kernel that I Josh> could free up some memory. On that note, I started Josh> recompiling the kernel a couple of times, and each time it Josh> failed (I forget why) after choosing to save the new kernel, Josh> so in /usr/src there are "linux-2.2.13" and Josh> "linux-2.2.13.old" folders, and the 2 files generated by Josh> make menuconfig (one is .old) So should I delete these extra Josh> files and start again from the beginning? Thanks! -Josh What kernel are you running now (output of 'uname -r')? On tuneup generally, try http://www.portico.org/categories/ http://linuxperf.nl.linux.org/ http://www.linux.com/tuneup/ -- Mike Fieschko, West Orange, NJ, USA X-Mailer: XEmacs 21.1, VM 6.75 and random-sig.el Kernel 2.2.14-15mdk http://www.viconet.com/fieschko/home.htm Jan 13 Baptism of Our Lord "It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands." [G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy]
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Seth Gibson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Josh McCaffrey wrote: > > desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform > > well for everybody straight out of the box. > Tho i think we are seeing that change more and more with Things like lizard and > such. . .me personally, when i installed mdk the first time it worked great. . > .of course alot of my hardware is so old, linux was probably very happy with my > machine(:-D Yeah, me, too! If I did have W98 on my box, I'm sure I would see a real drag in performance. I have not built a new kernel yet due to time constraints, and the fact that L-M 6.1 has performed very nicely for me out of the box. I'm sure that when I do trim down the stock kernel that I could free up some memory. On that note, I started recompiling the kernel a couple of times, and each time it failed (I forget why) after choosing to save the new kernel, so in /usr/src there are "linux-2.2.13" and "linux-2.2.13.old" folders, and the 2 files generated by make menuconfig (one is .old) So should I delete these extra files and start again from the beginning? Thanks! -Josh
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Try "Xconfigurator" at the command prompt. After you choose your video card, monitor specs, etc., try choosing more than one resolution, then later, you can switch resolutions by hitting <+>. Use the (+) on the num pad. Mine is set at 1024x768 and 800x600, but whenever I switch to 800x600, I get a "virtual screen", which may be what you're describing. eg: if you move the mouse past the edge of your desktop, you can see the rest of it, but not all at once? I don't care for the virtual screen either. -Josh JAMIL HUSSAIN wrote: > josh > > i installed linux on my machine, but the resolution is set incorrectly, i > cant see all the screen, what caommand do i use to change the res. > > >From: Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? > >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:13:41 + > > > > > >I think it all depends on how much extra support is compiled into your > >kernel that you're not using or maybe during install when you chose > >services you want started at boot time you chose alot you're not using > >either. Linux takes a little tweaking to get type of setup you want, but > >it's very flexible, and once you're happy w/ your performance, you can bet > >the farm nothing is going to change unless you change it or your HDD gets > >killed. You just have to do some reading, and mess around a little to get > >desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform > >well for everybody straight out of the box. > >Viel Gluck! > >-Josh > > > >Hugh Semmler wrote: > > > > > Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least > > > twice as fast as win98. > > > > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > > > michael dolan > > > -- > > > "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere." > > __ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
josh i installed linux on my machine, but the resolution is set incorrectly, i cant see all the screen, what caommand do i use to change the res. >From: Josh McCaffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow?? >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:13:41 + > > >I think it all depends on how much extra support is compiled into your >kernel that you're not using or maybe during install when you chose >services you want started at boot time you chose alot you're not using >either. Linux takes a little tweaking to get type of setup you want, but >it's very flexible, and once you're happy w/ your performance, you can bet >the farm nothing is going to change unless you change it or your HDD gets >killed. You just have to do some reading, and mess around a little to get >desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform >well for everybody straight out of the box. >Viel Gluck! >-Josh > >Hugh Semmler wrote: > > > Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least > > twice as fast as win98. > > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > > is that meant to be the case?? > > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > > > michael dolan > > -- > > "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere." __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Josh McCaffrey wrote: > desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform > well for everybody straight out of the box. Tho i think we are seeing that change more and more with Things like lizard and such. . .me personally, when i installed mdk the first time it worked great. . .of course alot of my hardware is so old, linux was probably very happy with my machine(:-D
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Hi, Win and Linux .. speend. Linux is much faster the win98 on my box. Mark -- ***Mark Fitzgerald (0-0) Campobello Island, NB, Canada. I need a new .sig. ***
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
I think it all depends on how much extra support is compiled into your kernel that you're not using or maybe during install when you chose services you want started at boot time you chose alot you're not using either. Linux takes a little tweaking to get type of setup you want, but it's very flexible, and once you're happy w/ your performance, you can bet the farm nothing is going to change unless you change it or your HDD gets killed. You just have to do some reading, and mess around a little to get desired results. There has never been any intention to make Linux perform well for everybody straight out of the box. Viel Gluck! -Josh Hugh Semmler wrote: > Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least > twice as fast as win98. > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > > is that meant to be the case?? > > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > > > michael dolan > -- > "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
Re: [newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
Well I cant speak for anybody else , But my computer runs at least twice as fast as win98. On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote: > i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. > i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux > is that meant to be the case?? > the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk > > michael dolan -- "I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
[newbie] is linux meant to be slow??
i have mandrake 6.1 and i have win98se. i use win98se quite alot and i found that it is much faster then linux is that meant to be the case?? the kernel installed is 2.2.13.22mdk michael dolan
