Linux slower than Windows? 7

[schase]

I have a AMD K6/2 500, 384mb Ram. Wanting to stick a toe in the Linux waters and try it out

I have installed the following (clean installs in-between)



Mandrake 9
Mandrake 10
Redhat 9
FreeBSD - 4.9.x & 5.2.x Managed to get one to install, but never could get gnome to launch - too bad here i really wanted to try it.

and Windows 2K Pro.



Why would Windows 2000 Pro seem faster than the “speedy” Linux I hear so much about? Even simple loading of a web browser is much much faster than Linux.



"Never underestimate the power of determination"

Stuart

 

[schase]

forgot to mention.

The above flavors were all installed as minimum - maybe openoffice.

And certainly one of the KDE/Gnome GUI's.

but thats about it. I could not detect any speed difference between any one of the linux Disto's noted above.

"Never underestimate the power of determination"

Stuart

 

[flugh]

Why would Windows 2000 Pro seem faster than the “speedy” Linux I hear so much about? Even simple loading of a web browser is much much faster than Linux.

Sober up? ;-)

I don't know what to say regarding the internals of the Operating System itself. If you think you've heard Linux preached as being "much faster than Windows <version>", then I feel like you've either been misled, or misunderstood what you were being fed.

Linux works great for me in a Server and Network Soldier role. My 6+ year-old laptop running Debian has run for 100+ days at a time, quietly handling firewall and routing duties on many occasions. It does whatever I want when it comes to serving up duties for the office and home networks.

But even after these years of using Linux (at times exclusively, other times sharing cycles with Windows), I neither pretend that Linux is a "better" desktop than Windows, or that Linux owes it to me to prove itself "speedier" than Windows. Sure, a 2003 Corvette is faster off the line than a 2003 Kenworth T-2000 semi-tractor, but what happens when you hook 45,000 pounds of freight onto the back of the Corvette ;-) (ok, I'm a truck driver, so it might only make sense to me)?

I consider Linux a great Server with a really nice Desktop if you want to use it. Personally, it's almost all I need (yeah, gotta boot Windows and play some Battlefield 1942 from time to time ;-)). If you want to run a web-browser quickly and Windows 2K runs it faster, then run it. Me, I prefer stupid things like the commandline, grep, find, cron, free software (as in both speech and beer), stuff like that. Neither better nor worse, just a choice.

Gotta love the freedom of choice!

http://www.howardstern.com

----
JBR

 

[thedaver]

I concur with the previous post. I would also like to add that Windows is famous for cutting corners on software loads to make the system appear "fast". The linux world likes to load all the relevant bits of the browser before it is turned over to the user, Windows doesn't always load all the support modules until you need them.

You'll get speed on the front end of browser loading with Windows in exchange for certain lags during use as it simply must load the code it needs at some time.

Windows vs. Linux arguments spark a lot of passionate discussion, get ready for some more.....

Surfinbox.com Business Internet Services - National Dialup, DSL, T-1 and more.

http://www.surfinbox.com/business/

 

[sleipnir214]

schase:
Sure Linux is fast -- so long as you're not running the GUI.

X Window is a behemoth. And when you run one of the complex desktop widget sets like KDE or Gnome on it, the behemoth grows.





Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[schase]

thanks guys

Bring on the passionate discussion - if I wasnt interested I wouldnt have posted.

What about everyone posts makes sense. My idea behind using a distro of Linux is twofold.

One - like I said I want to learn. While I do realize that Linux Distro's are not the same to compare to a Windows version, it's all I have to go off of for comparision. They may both be fruit, but I would actually argue they are not necessarily competitors except in the server environment. And I may even argue there that they are not.

Two - What I want to run. I do have a windows server box here, Active Directory Network and I want to run a content filter. I can install ISA and run that, but i want to take services off my box not add more pretty intensive ones like ISA. Having the typical IT budget - none. I looked around and found a couple of content filters I can test - like dansguardian - see if it'll do the job, then if it does, hit up the boss to purchase the commercial version of it.

The second item I want to run is some sort of a network analyzer. Which I know I can find open source for that.

And flugh hit it on the head. Up to date, all i've been told is oh yeah - linux can run on that - where I couldnt run Windows 2k pro on and get any type of performance. So I scrapped together parts and got myself the box i mentioned above. (oh btw Flugh, I read the other thread where someone asked what distro to pick, this thread i'm wondering which you prefer - was it maybe Debian? hehe.

hmmm, heres a further probing question. if the x Window is a behemoth like mentioned. And forgive me if i'm generalizing here, but where Linux is designed to access the kernel directly, would installing applications such as I need be affected by the X Window behemoth? I know in Windows it would be.

Incidentially, I was researching earlier trying to see what may slow the Linux Distro down. I came across a couple articles that mentioned Linux had a limit of 64mb Ram it would pick up by default and a setting needed to be changed for full memory discovery. But it was a pretty old article, I assumed the issue was addressed in later versions. Is that a correct assumption?



&quot;Never underestimate the power of determination&quot;

Stuart

 

[stefanwagner]

Latest question first: Yes, must be a very old article.
Todays vanilla-kernels adress normally nearly 1 GB of ram out of the box. For using more than that you normally have to rebuild the kernel with setting ram to up to 4 GB or 64 GB.

X-Windows isn't slow. KDE - and maybe gnome - are.
I'm using a self-tuned startup-procedure, which needs 30 sec. to boot into the commandline (1 Ghz AMD) and 10 sec. from there to X11, using fluxbox. Totally 40 seconds, compared to 3 min 30 sec. for win2k with most services disabled.

Fluxbox is nearly a no-desktop: no background image (though available), no icons (possible too).

I modified its context-menu which shows my top 10 commands (xterm, scite [small editor], eclipse, mozilla browser, mozilla mail, open office writer, open office calc, pled [a tool]), and 'stuff' where all the default-items went into a submenu, and 'exit'.
This way I don't need any icon - 98% of my commands are started from this menu - some of them of course via 'xterm'.

But mozilla is really slow - I agree.
There is a recent development which tried to make it faster (firebird?) but I didn't test - the browser is started once, and only closed on shutdown.
Opera is told to be a fast browser, but since I manage my mail with mozilla-mail, I don't want to switch.

OpenOffice needs a lot of startup time too, but I use it rarely.

If you're used to close every window immedeatly, you may change this behaviour.
Multiple virtual screens will relieve you.

In general, I don't think there is a big speed difference between windows and linux per se.

 

[LawnBoy]

And remember, many of the support files for Internet Explorer are loaded at bootup, which makes IE load really fast being directly hooked into the Win kernel. Try a 3rd party browser on Windows, see how fast it loads.

As far as a network analyzer, may I suggest Ethereal. It's easy to use, will run on about any OS, and is free.

 

[schase]

Gave everyone stars,

if I was a bit late in doing so.

I've been trying to check out ethereal, pretty simple to setup and capture info. Just need to find the time to investigate all the bells and whistles.

Many thanks folks.

&quot;Never underestimate the power of determination&quot;

Stuart

 

[venkman]

Maybe it's just me, but I find that when I install a new windows system (XP in particular) it starts off considerably faster than a new linux install. This situation quickly changes as I start the ritualistic beating of my computers, where I install, uninstall, and reinstall alpha,beta, and stable software. I often think of linux as more tank like. It starts slower but ends at the same speed, not showing signs of fatigue. Windows on the other hand works great until you use it for a while, and then you start getting increased stability and performance issues. I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the installing and uninstalling of software, but I have no concrete evidence for that, just a feeling.

Has anyone else observed this?

-Venkman

 

[schase]

well on the Windows side,

Yeah it certainly will as more and more programs are loaded into memory on startup.

But regular cleaning of temp files, defragging, and only starting up what you need. i.e. why startup yahoo if it will launch anyway when you want it to launch.

Always kept the performance stable in windows for me. Takes that maintenance though.

Unless of course you just install a program that has memory releasing problems, like Windows ME, Office, etc.

&quot;Never underestimate the power of determination&quot;

Stuart

 

[bfks3230]

It seems to be that GNOME and KDE are pretty bloated. Try Windowmaker or something else. With Linux, you always have plenty of options.

 

[zebratech]

Its all the overhead *bells and whistles* that slow an OS down, so depending how lean you run will really determine speed given the same hardware. What is awesome about linux is what has been mentioned before, Stability!



Unix IS user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.

 

[shrubble]

I've found KDE and GNOME to be fine as far as GUI's go; I can tell you one thing-- I never get any irritating dialog boxes asking me if I want to send a report (where do those damn things go anyway?) to, ahem... anyone.

Even if that dialog was there, you more than likely wouldn't see it anyway because the (stable kernel release)really doesn't crash too often. Even when it does, it's honest: "Hey man, this is a bug!"

The real power (and fun) of linux is always the command line, and the ability to leave that thing runnin FOREVER, and never worry about it. At least that's what I like...

deletion mistake
no I can't recover that
you didn't save it

-Shrubble

http://www.ishrubble.com