If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm trying to really learn about my Linux systems.
I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really helped me tremendously. I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/filexxxx possiblities. My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or windows. Robert Crawford On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:11 pm, et wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > > > experience. > > > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > > > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > > > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > > > get faster response. > > > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > > > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > > > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > > > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT > > > video. Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my > > > experience, which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program > > > is going to produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static > > > across the top 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these > > > have happened this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that > > > XFree86 gets the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since > > > driver debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > > > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > > > > > dos centavos, > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of > > > > words was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm > > > > sorry, but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of > > > > course I do have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and > > > > tuned to perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak > > > > my Linux installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows > > > > > > that windows > > > > > > > > ... > > > > And don't forget the obvious > > > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading > > ALL of OpenOffice. > > > > So if you are comparing Windows performance in this area, try opening > > OpenOffice on Desktop 2 and just ticking it on the taskbar, > > > > Same for Konqueror/Mozilla/Phoenix/Opera vs MSIE > > > > That is not to say there are not slower areas in linux. Video drivers > > are a problem (strange, Windows doesn't write video drivers), and of > > course the overhead in maintaining decent security is there by design in > > linux. > > > > My own results, on my own equipment, do not support your results, but > > then I have machines with a LOT of memory which linux uses and Windows > > does not. > > > > Civileme > > I bet your network is correctly setup and tweaked, and his /etc/host file > is empty too
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
