[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: How can we improve perceived response time?
From:       Troels Tolstrup <troels () tolstrup ! org>
Date:       2002-11-29 17:45:44
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fredag den 29. november 2002 18:37, optimus prime wrote:
> What's even confounding is that Windows 98 loads in 10 seconds in my
> Win4Lin 3.0 setup. My machine is a Pentium III 733 192 MB RAM. OS is
> Linux Mandrake 8.2 (without gcc 3.2) with Netraverse kernel patches
> for Win4Lin3.0. Loading Win98 and Office 2000 is fast. With newer
> Win4Lin versions (4.0), other people report startup times of 8
> seconds or less.

Or maybe your win4lin startup is much faster than the real windows, 
because you already have an operating system setup so it doesnt have to 
initialize the hardware, enable disc caching and all kinds of shit that 
is basically a NOOP when running it under linux?

> Forgive me for the sacrilege, but I am still inclined to use Office
> 2K inside a Win4Lin session simply because of the instantaneous
> startup times and quick responsiveness. OpenOffice would take too
> long to load and the interface is sluggish. My friends are still
> happily using Office2K on Win98 on Pentium 166 with 32MB RAM because
> Linux + KDE will not run fast on these machines. 

And im sure i can make a system running linux and twm start up and feel 
much faster than windows.

But this is just as silly as comparing win98 to a modern linux distro 
running kde 3.x.

Try to show me ANY modern operating system with a modern gui environment 
that will run nicely on that box, and no, win9x doesnt count as modern 
anymore.

And i am using office at work on a dual PII 333 mhz with enough ram, and 
i think its freaking slow. I surely dont want to run it on a P166. I 
also generally find windows' interface to be sluggish as soon as the 
machine is just somewhat busy, while i never experience this on linux 
unless it is running out of memory, which it only does when i stuff up 
:)

> For me, KDE on Pentium 166 is a good benchmark reference. I will keep
> my fingers crossed and hope that KDE will soon fly in these machines.

Yeah, and windows XP will really fly on my old 386dx. dream on :)

> Linux is meant to be an enabling technology, and the kernel hackers
> have labored hard to run Linux fast and reliable on old machines. I
> don't see the point of getting others to switch to Linux if KDE will
> only run on machines with 128 MB of RAM and a Pentium III or
> Duron-class processor. It will be cool if KDE can run on a Pentium
> 166.

It doesnt, but dont expect a fully featured gui system to run on low 
spec machines. You don't want to run XP on those either im sure. If you 
think that is what people mean by linux being extremely scaleable, then 
you need to read up :) It does run on old hardware, but you need to 
pick your software accordingly.

Sorry, but a super fast KDE running on your wrist watch wont happen 
anytime soon. (unless you get a really badass wrist watch)

Mvh
Troels
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]