Not really a question, but a little insight.
I am an avid Slackware Linux user, but on seeing Suse 9.1 available for download I thought I would give it a go. The install is flawless, with its auto-configuration, although I see nothing wrong with Slackwares curses install. A little while later it was installed. I couldnt get grub boot loader to play nicely with XP so it went in the MBR.
I reboot and this is the disappointment... it is REALLY slow, granted nice, but nothing really new. I have a pretty good spec machine and Slack flies compared with Suse. DMA was on but it just seemed to take forever to boot, and sluggish when it gets there. Do you reckon it was the new kernel? I tried 2.6 with Slack and it seemed even faster.
SO on seeing 10.0 Slackware out I got rid of Suse, and am back at home.
Rob
On Monday 28 Jun 2004 7:23 pm, Robert Frusher wrote:
Not really a question, but a little insight.
I am an avid Slackware Linux user, but on seeing Suse 9.1 available for download I thought I would give it a go. The install is flawless, with its auto-configuration, although I see nothing wrong with Slackwares curses install. A little while later it was installed. I couldnt get grub boot loader to play nicely with XP so it went in the MBR.
I reboot and this is the disappointment... it is REALLY slow, granted nice, but nothing really new. I have a pretty good spec machine and Slack flies compared with Suse. DMA was on but it just seemed to take forever to boot, and sluggish when it gets there. Do you reckon it was the new kernel? I tried 2.6 with Slack and it seemed even faster.
Are you comparing like with like? When it comes right down to it kernel, X-windows and desktop are the key determinants of operational speed. If they are identical then there should be little difference in speed. If there is then it is likely something else is wrong. For example if you have limited memory then Suse may well be loading lots more daemons etc the Slack so when you are up and running Suse needs to use swap a lot which would cause a huge hit on performance.
Ian
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 17:29, IanBell wrote:
Are you comparing like with like? When it comes right down to it kernel, X-windows and desktop are the key determinants of operational speed. If they are identical then there should be little difference in speed. If there is then it is likely something else is wrong. For example if you have limited memory then Suse may well be loading lots more daemons etc the Slack so when you are up and running Suse needs to use swap a lot which would cause a huge hit on performance.
I must say I too was surprised by Robert's findings. I considered posting something along the same lines as you the other day, however I decided that seeing as I have never played with Slack (beyond one aborted installation many years ago) I wasn't really in much of a position to argue the case.
What I will say though is that when I installed 9.1 on my 850Mhz Dell Laptop, I found it feeling quite snappy.
One thing Robert that SuSE does do, it tends to assume DHCP is available to all local network interfaces. So if you have interfaces sitting there either unplugged or on a network where there is no DHCP service available then this can cause excessive delays on boot. I wonder if there is a way of sensing the presence of an active connection the way Windows XP does. I like the behaviour in XP where it skips interfaces with no physical connection, reruns DHCP upon connection etc etc.
-
IanBell -
Robert Frusher -
Wayne Stallwood