i486 vs. i686

Frem · 2005-11-13 02:22:47

Hello,

First, system specs.
Gateway Solo 2500 laptop
64Mb RAM
4 Gig HD
300MHz pII
You may point and laugh.

I used ArchLinux for a while, but I got really tired of how *slow* everything was. Then, I tired DSL and discovered that this system running off cdrom was going faster then Arch running off hard disk. Not good.
I tried using DSL on disk, but it did not support my wifi card with it's 2.4 kernel.

So, I went to Debian Stable. Not as fast as DSL, but it seemed much faster then ArchLinux, and the kernel was wifi friendly.

Now, some observations:
X.org in Arch took up 30Mb RAM
XFree86 in Debian takes up 20Mb RAM
TinyX Kdrive in DSL takes 4Mb RAM

I've noticed that in Debian, there tends to be much less swapping and less ram usage. It also feels faster, though I don't have any numbers to back it up.

I asked about it on the IRC channel, and got the following "facts". Actually, people just argued about them for a while and I don't know what to think.

- i486 packages take up less RAM.
- i686 packages run faster then i486 stuff.
- The more optimized the kernel is, the less RAM everything takes.
- I should uninstall X and use the command line all the time.
- I am leet.

I also have a new-used laptop that is slightly faster that I'll get working soon
450MHz pIII
128Mb RAM
20gig HD

My question is:
Will ArchLinux run faster then Debian on this system? How much of these "facts" are true and/or should I take into consideration?

stavrosg · 2005-11-13 02:37:43

I think the main difference is in gcc : Debian / DSL use gcc 3.x while Arch gcc uses 4.0.x .
There were big architectual changes in, so the aim was stability and reliability rather than speed at first.

I may be wrong, but the impression is that at this time, gcc4 produces somewhat slower / less efficient binaries than gcc3, and probably that is your problem there. It may pass unnoticed in a fast system, but in an outdated system like the P-II / early P-III probably isn't.
It's your call. really.
And others, If I am wrong, feel free to flame me

Gullible Jones · 2005-11-13 03:20:52

What filesystem are you using?

Dusty · 2005-11-13 03:54:45

I'm using Arch on a 450MHz PII, and I have to say I am astonished with how quickly it runs. No comparison to Debian, but its waaaaaaaaay faster than WinXP. ;-)

even so, can't you get a 1GHz system for practically free nowadays? why not upgrade?

Dusty

Frem · 2005-11-13 18:56:50

Thanks for the info about gcc, stavrosg.

I'm using ReiserFS. It seems pretty good, disk access is defanetly as fast or faster then under Windows 98.

Dusty: A 1Ghz laptop for free/close-to-free? Seriously?
I mean, I know a guy who works for IBM, but they make him send back all the cool equipment they let him use when it becomes obsolete.

Snarkout · 2005-11-14 14:50:42

Huh. I'd have to say that I'm surprised. I'm brand new to Arch, and one of the things I instantly noticed was that it's quite a bit quicker/more responsive than other systems I've had running on the same box. I've never been a big believer in the whole "Optimized For i686" argument, but I'd have to say that my experience, so far, is almost opposite to yours. I tend to be generous with RAM though, so you may be seeing a problem I'd never see.

phrakture · 2005-11-14 15:59:36

Frem wrote:

Dusty: A 1Ghz laptop for free/close-to-free? Seriously?

I'm planning on ordering this one soon - it's a 1.3GHz pentium M for under $700.

To me, that's cheap as hell - but if you want "free or close-to-free", you can always check ebay - sometimes you can get 2GHz machines for like $200.

Dusty · 2005-11-14 16:04:07

I wasn't talking about a laptop, but if a 1.3 laptop is $700, a PC ought to be close to free.... ;-)

Dusty

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-11-15 00:13:11

phrakture wrote:

Frem wrote:
Dusty: A 1Ghz laptop for free/close-to-free? Seriously?
I'm planning on ordering this one soon - it's a 1.3GHz pentium M for under $700.
To me, that's cheap as hell - but if you want "free or close-to-free", you can always check ebay - sometimes you can get 2GHz machines for like $200.

700$? thats way too much.

JGC · 2005-11-15 08:23:48

I used gentoo and archlinux for a while on my P2 366 laptop. The most important thing to linux: RAM. Make sure you have 192MB or more RAM, 128MB is just unworkable IMHO. Even Windows XP runs fine on that old beast with 192MB RAM, wouldn't think of that when it only had 128MB in it.

Linux isn't optimized for slow old hardware anymore these days. Debian doesn't support i386 anymore, a 486 is required nowadays. Their installer needs at least 48MB, etc. The switch to cairo also doesn't score high points with old hardware, I can see this on my old linux terminals that only draw screen and listen to mouse and keyboard signals, they became a bit slower after the GNOME 2.12 update. (though 1280x1024 on a Celeron 300A with 96MB and a 4MB Matrox PCI card isn't that super )

s0lar · 2005-11-15 11:51:40

You can always try slackware on an old computer. But arch runs fine on a p3 500 with 128MB ram.

Frem · 2005-11-15 19:51:11

Ok, so RAM seems to be the biggie. I'll hunt around for upgrades.

@Dusty: $200 == close to free? lol, not for me!

@JGC: Cairo? I thought that Cario was just for Gnome? Seriously, why would I be running Gnome on a computer that old?

@s0lar: Thanks for the info. How much swapping do you get in normal use? With 64Mb RAM, I have to wait though stuff getting moved around in swap almost every time I open a new program. Also, what desktop/windowmanager do you use?

JGC · 2005-11-15 21:51:29

Cairo is for GTK, which is more than just GNOME: Firefox, thunderbird, XFCE...

gunnix · 2005-11-30 18:33:50

I don't think that much ram should be required. I run linux happily on a p1 with only 64m ram, my mom uses it for email, browsing. I love to use it too, as it works surprisingly well. Ok, I only run icewm, opera (or links2 -g, elinks), sylpheed-claws (or muttng), vim (or abiword,..), etc. Just pick the light apps and it works good.

I use debian on my p1, but I wish arch would work too. Arch is just such a slim os. Too bad it doesn't support old cpu's

Arch Linux

#1 2005-11-13 02:22:47

i486 vs. i686

#2 2005-11-13 02:37:43

Re: i486 vs. i686

#3 2005-11-13 03:20:52

Re: i486 vs. i686

#4 2005-11-13 03:54:45

Re: i486 vs. i686

#5 2005-11-13 18:56:50

Re: i486 vs. i686

#6 2005-11-14 14:50:42

Re: i486 vs. i686

#7 2005-11-14 15:59:36

Re: i486 vs. i686

#8 2005-11-14 16:04:07

Re: i486 vs. i686

#9 2005-11-15 00:13:11

Re: i486 vs. i686

#10 2005-11-15 08:23:48

Re: i486 vs. i686

#11 2005-11-15 11:51:40

Re: i486 vs. i686

#12 2005-11-15 19:51:11

Re: i486 vs. i686

#13 2005-11-15 21:51:29

Re: i486 vs. i686

#14 2005-11-30 18:33:50

Re: i486 vs. i686

Board footer