Hi, Sorry it took so long for me to reply, but I wasn't at work to read my
mail. I'll try to get hold of XFce and blackbox and see how it performs. As
to the speed issue: I tried turning of almost all system services, but the
result was the same. It still feels as if linux first has to think a while
about what command I've given it before it acts.Too bad. I have to use my
laptop in a few days to demonstrate the use of Mpegs in a discobar (don't
worry: I have all the originals!) but in linux (where everything seems to
work a lot slower) it just seems to work a lot better than in windows :).
The music keeps playing no matter what other tasks it is performing. I still
have a lot of problems though keeping the sound card to work, but that will
work just fine (with your help).
Maybe you have a suggestion: I installed my soundcard (an ESS...) and it
worked perfectly, until I started winamp again and changed some settings
(can't exactly remember what I did exactly), but I have restored all
original settings, and now Winamp just quits when I start to play music?
I purchased a couple of CD's to try out different distro's (I now have Suse,
RedHat, Debian and OpenLinux). Wich one would you recommend? I just want it
to work fast and capable of playing music.
thanks
Peter
> ----------
> From: Ray Olszewski[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: woensdag 23 februari 2000 8:53
> To: Vangrieken, Peter ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Laptop install
>
> Well, Peter, there are lighter weight WMs around than what you use. Not
> surprisingly, Lawson doesn't go in for such luxuries, but I too am a bit
> spoiled spoiled. As he correctly recalled, I personally like (and use on
> all
> my Linux hosts) one called blackbox -- functional but uncluttered. I've
> alos
> used and lined ice. And there's an extremely lightweight one called XFce
> (info at URL http://www.xfce.org/) that I haven't looked at.
>
> As to the speed of Linux ... I seem to recall you posting that concern
> before. I (and I think others) suggested you look at whether you have
> unnecessary processes running in the background, processes that either eat
> CPU time or force you to use swap ( a major speed killer). I recall RH
> loading a lot of unnecessary junk (a common failing in default
> installation
> choices, not one unique to RH).
>
> At 06:07 AM 2/23/00 -0000, Vangrieken, Peter wrote:
> > Well, the swap partition turned out to be working: I started
> >netscape (took me about 35 seconds to load!!) while monitoring 'top' on a
> >terminal.
> > I don't think the 'no-wm-approach' is something for me. I'm afraid
> >windows already learned me the bad habbid to always use a graphical
> >interface. I just find it very strange that Linux appears to be sooo slow
> >compared to windows (I am now comparing win98 and linux redhat 6.0 with
> >fvwm2 and so far windows is at the upper hand :((((() I just started up
> >fsconfig from a terminal and it took about 15 seconds just to load. Well,
> I
> >can see some hard disk activity when I give the command and then the
> >computer just waits for a while before it displays the window.
> ------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
> Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
> Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
