Dustpuppy Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Go for 2006 rather than 10.1 - seriously. I find my low-spec machines work much better with that, even to the extent that I can run Gnome rather than IceWm on them (see sig). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilia_kr Posted February 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Go for 2006 rather than 10.1 - seriously. I find my low-spec machines work much better with that, even to the extent that I can run Gnome rather than IceWm on them (see sig). You're right, 2006 is a little faster indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilia_kr Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 ...well at second thought its not. KDE 3.4 is very heavy, and all system barely 'moves' on my pc, espetially when opening many tabs in FireFox. I think i go back to 10.1, although slow but not as 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 You could try 10.2 (Mandriva 2005LE). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Or you could use e.g. Rox or XFCE for your desktop. They don't need much RAM like Gnome or KDE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilia_kr Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Yes, i could download 2005LE, but it takes time, and i allready have 10.1 that covers all my needs, so why bother? I've tried xfce, but it behaves weardly for some reason and the most important - i don't like it. I think i'm addicted to kde/windows look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieJohn Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Mandriva2005-LE (which was really 10.2) was a hell of an improvement over 10.1 and has proven to be more advanced and stable than 10.1 ever was. Therefore Daniel made an excellent suggestion which would be very worthwhile your considering. Cheers. John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilia_kr Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Mandriva2005-LE (which was really 10.2) was a hell of an improvement over 10.1 and has proven to be more advanced and stable than 10.1 ever was. Therefore Daniel made an excellent suggestion which would be very worthwhile your considering. Cheers. John. What version of KDE/GNOME does it use? I afraid that newer versions will slow me down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEberger Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 I agree with John. 2005 was more stable for me. Long uptimes were not uncommon. But I don't know that the differences in those three distros (10.1, 2005 or 2006) would make or break the performance on that machine. It is a hobby machine and consequently not the beefiest box. We all have one. Ilia, while unnecessary services might be an issue, you say you've disabled them. There are alot of unnecessary ones. Good job on that. For me the issue is the wm. I'm a KDE fan too, but sometimes I've had to concede. My work machine is a p4 with 256 MB RAM. Great workstation. But, I had to choose a different (non-KDE) window manager in order for the machine to be reasoanbly usable. This was simply from a standpoint that KDE uses too much RAM. I chose windowmaker. Why? It's pretty quick. It's pretty and it's really customizable. If I had the time, I'd be running Fluxbox. Uber-light. Super-duper customizable. It even allows the use of KDE-APPS in a docked fashion. It cuts down my running processes from about 100 (still way too many even in KDE) to about 60. Serious difference in performance. While Linux is remarkably fast, the window managers really do make a difference. I hope this helps sway your decision to a lighter wm (perhaps other than XFce). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilia_kr Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 While Linux is remarkably fast, the window managers really do make a difference. I hope this helps sway your decision to a lighter wm (perhaps other than XFce). Yes, i understand what you're saying. During last two weeks i reinstalled various versions of MDK for 3 times, all becouse my unsuccessfull experiments. I started with installing xfce4 on 10.1 and it didn't want to work properly: i had missing taskbar and it crushed randomly. I thought that's about time for me to upgrade to 2006, so i updated 10.1 - total disaster. MCC crushed, urpmi didn't work, KDE stalled... I formatted and reinstalled. 2006 is a good peace of software, but terrebly slow, even with xfce4 that i mannaged to install eventually. And then, i went back to 10.1 - that never coused me any trouble. If i'll have to reinstall something one more time - there is a good chanse that i would kill someone ==> P.S. If i'll change my mind, is one CD enough for updating from 10.1 to 10.2? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) If i'll change my mind, is one CD enough for updating from 10.1 to 10.2? I would not update but instead do a clean install of 2005 (10.2). You will need the 3 CD's Edited February 22, 2006 by daniewicz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 (edited) If not on fast net connection then you'd better have the whole 3-CD set... upgrading on dialup is a pain. For old hardware, Vector Linux (= customized Slackware) is a very good distro. Default DM is now XFCE4, but you can also use IceWM and, if you wish, KDE. Edited February 23, 2006 by scarecrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scythe Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I've been using Mandriva 2006 with KDE on a 733 mhz Pent3 with no problems with speed. I suppose if I had it installed on a newer machine, I would probably complain about it being slow as molasses, but, alas, I'm not jaded by having a Linux uber-machine :P Some apps do load a little slow, but its still faster than the Windows XP install I have on the other hard drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 The main problem with Mandriva is not the machine, nor KDE, but the kernel, which is stuffed with all sorts of oddities and is dog slow... The stock Vector kernel is not vanilla, but it has just a few necessary patches, and since it fits your hardware it should boot and act ages faster than a stock Mandriva kernel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.