Is linux getting fat?

dpb · 2004-06-15 10:20:22

rasat wrote:

Its known in Windows (became ovious with win'98 ) its getting slower after each usage and requires to reformat the HDD twice a year to keep up with the speed. Nothing can be done though there is a Disk Defragmenter, which is good for one boot only

Twice a year!?!? How can you manage that? :shock: When I had Windows I had to reformat about every month.

rocknice · 2007-08-31 03:49:23

about 6 months ago i noticed the same thing....linux becoming slower and slower. I was running the stock arch 2.6 kernel. I researched compiling my own kernel and hours later i successfully compiled my own custom optimized kernel. Now my 1 ghz pentium III loads firefox with xfce4 faster than my hyperthreaded 2.6 ghz pentium 4 windows machine.

twiistedkaos · 2007-08-31 10:13:31

EH, my arch box boots into X and openbox in under 12secs, which is fine for me. Beats any windows os I've had installed. The major difference is, as someone else already stated, Windows is Desktop Oriented, it's kernel is made for desktop performance. The linux kernel is still lacking Desktop Performance and I expect it to be that way for a long time. Simply stating, the kernel developers seem more distracted by other things that tweaking the performance of the linux desktop, which I don't really mind. I run a desktop fine on linux without any noticable performance loss.

Dusty · 2007-08-31 16:35:19

this thread is two years old... arch boot time since then has improved a lot. I can't say anything about desktop performance really. I've heard Windows is better optimized for it, but every time I boot into Windows I quickly get irritated at how unresponsive it is... on the same machine that I run a bloated gnome install with all the fancy compiz effects!

Dusty

skoal · 2007-09-01 15:12:08

mephisto wrote:

Who cares the boot time? The runtime is interesting.

Not to mention, with solid state flash hard drives just around the corner, the boot will quickly become the sneaker.

cactus · 2007-09-01 15:59:46

skoal wrote:

mephisto wrote:
Who cares the boot time? The runtime is interesting.
Not to mention, with solid state flash hard drives just around the corner, the boot will quickly become the sneaker.

I am still waiting for the other shoe to drop on solid state flash drives. I haven't been impressed with usb flash drive speed, and there were originally some claims that it would "replace hard drives in a few years" with the advent of usb 2.0.

skoal · 2007-09-01 16:26:28

Ah, yes, my pirate monkey friend. Truly, the USB interface is slower than a Texas two step with a beer in one hand and your lady pressed against your chest with the other.

However, for example, most of our government clients currently deploy our solid state flash drives systems. Whereas, the majority of our competitors will lose a bid (in part) since they're still using traditional medium interfaces, having latency and maintenance issues.

NAND density is increasing almost exponentially too, which was it's main "selling" point way back yonder. Hey, I'm a see'er believer too, Cactus. I say we hold our breath together, turn blue cheek, and punch eachother in the gut next year when SSD finally arrives, hopefully...

kagerato · 2007-09-12 01:34:15

Flash read rates are generally comparable to hard disks, and "seeking" requires no mechanical parts. It's the write rate which is often poor, though it's gradually improving.

People like flash because it occupies very little physical space, makes no recognizable noise, and draws little power. If flash density continues to double every year (often accompanied by a drop in price as well) we may eventually see it replace all other forms of removable media. Magnetic hard disks aren't going away in the near future, though. Every time you think the hard disk manufacturers have hit a ceiling, they implement some new recording mechanism or find a way to find more platters into the same space to bypass it.

ConnorBehan · 2007-09-25 02:41:46

I use Lilo with the compact option, and I don't automatically load X, so it takes about 25 seconds to get to INIT and then another 25 seconds to get to login and then startxfce4 only takes about 10 seconds. Arch Linux is completely customizable though. It doesn't force people to have huge apps like distros that come with desktop environments. The Arch way is perfect... those people should read the Wiki .

Misfit138 · 2007-09-25 04:17:44

yak8998 wrote:

I think it is clear WinXP is much faster than win2000wrk, is much stable, it has better support for peripheral and for sure it has better game compatibility that for home use is foundamental.
WinXP (pro) is actually win2000 with some new componets, so it cannot be any faster than an identically configured win2k machine. Both are excellent OSs though (I prefer Win2k due to what I call the 'bloat factor' of XP).

Win XP is consistently much faster to bootup and more responsive than 2K in my experience. While you are right, XP is merely Windows NT 5.1, (whereas 2K is 5.0,) XP definitely has some improvements in streamlining bootup and opening applications. As a GNU/Linux user, I can still say that Windows XP with SP2 and all sec updates is still a terrific OS. Most Windows XP issues exist between the keyboard and chair. I have consistently run XP SP2 for years without issue on a dozen machines, and without Anti-Virus software on my personal machines.

EDIT: Who keeps resurrecting all these old threads?

Last edited by Misfit138 (2007-09-25 04:18:45)

Arch Linux

#26 2004-06-15 10:20:22

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#27 2007-08-31 03:49:23

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#28 2007-08-31 10:13:31

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#29 2007-08-31 16:35:19

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#30 2007-09-01 15:12:08

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#31 2007-09-01 15:59:46

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#32 2007-09-01 16:26:28

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#33 2007-09-12 01:34:15

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#34 2007-09-25 02:41:46

Re: Is linux getting fat?

#35 2007-09-25 04:17:44

Re: Is linux getting fat?

Board footer