Damnshock wrote:I see no point in further discussing anything at all with someone that just undervalues any opinion different than his/hers and, even worse, laughs about it.

Regards

I agree. I see no reason to value their opinion when all I've seen of their opinion is: haha, your opinion is ****.

Besides this topic is about suggestions for our new friend who is wondering about performance of Linux as compared to XP, and in general Linux will perform better than XP. That said there are some factors to take into account when picking the particular linux Distribution and Desktop Environment, and as I see it, the comments that have already been made (aside from the childish argument that arose) should be sufficiently informative.

airdrik wrote:haha, your opinion is ****.

Well, cause it's ****. Sad truth. I'm using Windows for about 20 years, Linux (daily) for about 7-8. I known their weakness. I don't hate MS, I'm not blind fooled Linux fanboy.
All you can say is: "Linux is faster", and nothing to prove it (cause you can't). End of story.

Well considering that people have stated and provided examples (and have been willing to provide details behind those examples, which you have only arrogantly dismissed) about how linux is faster for them, but you apparently are experiencing slowness as compared to windows, perhaps there is a bug/regression somewhere that can be resolved somehow to make your linux experience faster. Don't go saying that because linux is slower for you then it is slower for everybody because that is obviously not the case.

OK, to answer your (and only your) question aloegel

I think that a 500Mb of ram and Pentium IV CPU is not enought to run KDE, your CPU is a little bit slow but it's OK, you should add more RAM to your computer to have, at least, 1 Gb, I thinks it's a minimum

Then disable strigi and desktop effects

if KDE needs too much ressources (I don't think), try enlightment or lxde, they are really simple but so fast.

I get a pentium IV with 2 gb of ram, it's a little bit slow 'cause of the cpu but it's ok for children, then, try to install wine to play game developped for Windows.

david.

I have a system that dual boots XP and Squeeze, P4-1.6Ghz, 1GB RAM, 128MB Nvidia card.
The systems are on different drives but the drives are identical as they were once configured in a RAID array.
With a properly configured KDE4 desktop many things are either faster or just as fast.
I never actually quantized the speed differences, but they're close enough that there's no reason besides argument.
There's no reason doing that though, as the person calling "****" on this would accept nothing short of showing up with the system at his door and forcing him to witness it.
And that's not gonna happen so I'm just chiming in with my own experiences.
Not opinions, actual experiences.

Gedgon, that sucks that Arch and KDE perform so poorly on your system.
I've had nothing but good experiences overall with both. I'm not a big Arch user, I prefer Debian but I do have an older machine running slack 12.2 with KDE3 and it screams compared to when it had XP on it.

glaston wrote:Gedgon, that sucks that Arch and KDE perform so poorly on your system.

Lol, it's not Arch fault, or my system. For exaple, bugs from video are upstream, so what are you talking about?

I just wanted to address the Flash comment. I'm a facebook game addict and all the games I play are Flash games. They all work fine on 32 bit installs. The only time I had any problems with flash was with 64 bit installs. That was a while ago though, so things may have gotten better with 64 bit flash lately.

gedgon wrote:

airdrik wrote:haha, your opinion is ****.

Well, cause it's ****. Sad truth. I'm using Windows for about 20 years, Linux (daily) for about 7-8. I known their weakness. I don't hate MS, I'm not blind fooled Linux fanboy.
All you can say is: "Linux is faster", and nothing to prove it (cause you can't). End of story.

Sad truth is that you haven't proved anything either so why the bad language and aggressiveness?

I don't really want to get this started again but just noticed this ridiculous spit. The tone of conversation doesn't measure up to this (or any other) forum's etiquette and is to be regretted.

It also is a wonderful introduction for somebody wanting to have a look at an alternative to M$. He/She must be thinking: Boy, these people are horrible.

CraigPaleo wrote:I just wanted to address the Flash comment. I'm a facebook game addict and all the games I play are Flash games. They all work fine on 32 bit installs. The only time I had any problems with flash was with 64 bit installs. That was a while ago though, so things may have gotten better with 64 bit flash lately.

I'm not familiar with facebook games, so first up, probably most popular game there. Indeed, works just amazing.



menu, 72% CPU (both cores of C2D)

toad wrote:Sad truth is that you haven't proved anything [...]

Happily for aloegel, you proved everything.

gedgon wrote:

CraigPaleo wrote:I just wanted to address the Flash comment. I'm a facebook game addict and all the games I play are Flash games. They all work fine on 32 bit installs. The only time I had any problems with flash was with 64 bit installs. That was a while ago though, so things may have gotten better with 64 bit flash lately.

I'm not familiar with facebook games, so first up, probably most popular game there. Indeed, works just amazing.



menu, 72% CPU (both cores of C2D)

Something is seriously wrong with your install. If I were you, I'd be politely asking for help rather than complaining and ridiculing.

Behold: Flash using 38% of my Sempron LE 1250 single core. Firefox with about 14 tabs open, including a Flash game and YouTube. I never bookmark. I just keep tabs open.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Arch is as good or as bad as you make it. Perhaps gedgon should consider another distro - like windows Sorry, couldn't help it...

I hear you have to know what you're doing to use Arch.

gedgon's issue in this case is probably graphics driver related. My guess is that the system is using the framebuffer driver.

CraigPaleo wrote:

gedgon wrote:

CraigPaleo wrote:I just wanted to address the Flash comment. I'm a facebook game addict and all the games I play are Flash games. They all work fine on 32 bit installs. The only time I had any problems with flash was with 64 bit installs. That was a while ago though, so things may have gotten better with 64 bit flash lately.

I'm not familiar with facebook games, so first up, probably most popular game there. Indeed, works just amazing.



menu, 72% CPU (both cores of C2D)

Something is seriously wrong with your install. If I were you, I'd be politely asking for help rather than complaining and ridiculing.

Behold: Flash using 38% of my Sempron LE 1250 single core. Firefox with about 14 tabs open, including a Flash game and YouTube. I never bookmark. I just keep tabs open.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

OMFG, all noobs here? Even admin? I'm speechless. At least try to run the same game, if not, test your scenario on Linux and Windows.

Since when is flash performance a benchmark for operating systems ? Flash is a sinonim for bugs and security holes (beside Adobe Reader)

I've stopped using flash for two years now, and no I don't miss it. I'm using minitube for youtube browsing and I couldn't care less about flash content on other web sites. Flash suck big time for Windows and Linux - and I consider it a disease that will be (hopefully) rooted out soon enough.

All you can say is: "Linux is faster", and nothing to prove it (cause you can't). End of story.

Benchmarking is not for n00bs - it's a serious business. You have to take all of parameters that are influencing the results into account - before making any statements. Saying linux is faster is a subjective feeling - and I'm glad that any Linux user have it, but I really don't take this as a + in Linux vs Windows discussions.

toad wrote:Arch is as good or as bad as you make it. Perhaps gedgon should consider another distro - like windows Sorry, couldn't help it...

Not just Arch, this is true for all operating systems including Windows (lol). But some OS's or distributions are more configurable than others and can be stripped to bare bones - Arch is one of those. I know you know but we're just chatting


KDE is a modern desktop enviroment and naturally you will feel more confy with better hardware - if you have a really old PC - give some lightweight window manager or DE a shot - there are plenty of those for Linux. If flash is a must have - than stick to 32-bit Linux (glimpse on your hw spec suggests you will) and experiment with different browsers untill you get a satisfying results.