shane wrote: > On Thursday 07 February 2002 06:46, you spoke unto me thusly: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Linux has some problems. To get the performance of IE5 and Word97 on > > Win95 with 48 MB and a 233 MHz processor, I needed 256 MB on a 700 MHz > > processor (running Konqueror, primarily). (I run AbiWord on Windows, > > when I'm not running Word97.) > > i have to say i am confused by that statement. how do you compare the > performance? if you mean the time to open an app, that is illusion created > by preloading.
Illusions can be nice. ;-) > if you mean raw performance, on the same hardware, one > running 98se and one mandrake 8.0, setiathome (as a cpu heavy example) is > almost 40% faster. if you mean to actually edit or surf in those apps you > mentioned, and you really see that kind of performance trouble, you need to > look at your hardware or perhaps changing to the newer kernel (the one on > the download cds does have a vitual memory problem) because that is simply > "not right." I had similar performance with Caldera 2.2 and 2.4, RedHat 6.2, Mandrake 6.2, 7.0, 7.2, and 8.1 (the ones with kde 1 did perform a little better, still did not match Windows). Tried on several different machines, with, at this point, three different motherboards (all low end). If I need a high end motherboard or high end other hardware, it just reinforces the idea that Linux needs more (or better) resources than Windows for similar performance. > besides, 8.1 compares to win 2000 not 95, for far too many > reasons to go into here. suffice to say, morre's law (is that how you > spell his name?) drives software as well. ;-) Moore > > Linux will get there one day, and is already there at the server level. > > The advantage of Linux is that it provides competition for Microsoft, > > which is why I'm sticking with it -- trying to learn more, improve it > > (if I can), and support it. > > the irony, as much as MS fights Open Source in public, without it they > would have an even worse product, and not just because of compitition.... > > > It is unfortunate that some people feel mislead (myself included) by the > > "promises" that we thought we heard about Linux. I want to be careful > > about what I say about Linux -- I'd rather have somebody be pleasantly > > surprised than unpleasantly surprised. > > while i agree i would rather be pleasently surprised, i am bewildered. i > was able, with some hacking, to make an old 486sx machine with 4 megs of > RAM give me the text editing and html display i need for most of my tasks. > no, there is no X display, no kde, blah blah blah, but i would like to see > any other OS give me multiple terminals, 32 bit power, tcp/ip, text > editing, and basic html display, in the same 5 or so megs of harddrive > space on that cpu and ram. WinCE requires more. hell my visor has better > specs! in fact i prefer the visor for hardware reasons, the old laptop was > just a learning project. Win 95 with Word, Excel, Access (all 97), Visio 5.1, AskSam (3.1), ZyIndex (very old dos version), Visual Basic 5 and 6, Turbo Pascal, and built in "Samba" (SMB) networking, do just about everything I need, with adequate response and reliability (I watch resouces and reboot when appropriate) on a 233 MHz machine with 48 MB and on a Gateway colorbook 486 50 with 8 MB (with fewer windows open) *and in GUI*. I expected Linux to do better than that. It doesn't. I may be able to run a webserver, mailserver, etc., and am now starting to do so -- but I don't need to (and these are on a separate box anyway). If I was not interested in Linux for "philosophical" reasons, I would be unhappily back in the Windows world, confident that I had given Linux a fair trial. Anyway, I just want to make sure that when I try to sell Linux I create realistic expectations. regards, Randy Kramer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
