Is this normal?

[heljy]

Hi all!! I just upgraded to mandrake 9.0 and I must say i am impressed, its really easy to use  

Anyway, I am using the gnome wm, gnome2 if I am correct, and the system seems sluggish...at least compared to when I was using Mandrake 8.0

P3 600
256MB Ram
Intel 810 integrated video card

Is that normal? Or is Gnome2 is very graphic intensive?

[rtgwbmsr]

Gnome2 is definately more graphics intensive. A slowdown is expected (KDE 3 didn't slow down much though, except for the "K" menu)

BTW: Mandrake has historically been slower than most other Linuxes.

Drake 9 is cool...enjoy!

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/B0b ]

[slave]

Dunno, I installed RH 8 (i know, not mandrake, but it has GNOME 2) on a 700 mhz athlon w/ 256 MB ram and it seemed faster in most respects than GNOME 1.4.  Just my experience.  Certainly faster on that computer than any version of KDE past 1.x.

[voidmain]

I would agree with XP User. Gnome2 seems much faster (and more stable) than previous versions of Gnome. And KDE 3.0 seems much faster than previous versions of KDE. To me they seem about the same for speed. But then I have an Athlon 1600 and RedHat 8 so it may not be noticable on my machine.

[rtgwbmsr]

It seemed faster on my Athlon 1700+ (1.46 GHz)

I noticed the slowdown on my K6-2 350 MHz and my 500 MHz PIII, both with old, cheap video cards. Might that have something to do with it in a Quartz-extremish way?

[voidmain]

I have a K6-2 450Mhz with onboard video (that shares RAM with the system). It's *very* slow on this system. I think the video card has a lot to do with it, and the amount of RAM you have of course.

[heljy]

Well, my experience of it being sluggish is when I shadow windows, move them around, etc. Its like really really breaking up, frame by frame, if you know what I mean. So I guess its really down to the onboard video  

Well, but it surely looks cool  

BTW, anyone know how to get that taskbar at the top of the screen to the bottom? Its taking too much of my screen space  

[lazygamer]

Gnome 2 runs much better then Gnome 1.4 did, but I have 433mhz. I felt KDE(haven't tried 3 so im not sure) can't be much better speedwise if they improved Gnome 2 alot. Honestly, Gnome 1.4 was so fucking slow(for me) I wondered why the hell they released this piece of shit?!  

Gnome 2 or KDE3? Well Bluecurve on RH8 kinda standardizes these two right?

[voidmain]

Yes RH8 did make both have a very similar look. I really liked KDE 3.x on RH7.3 but I believe they screwed KDE over in 8.0. I would stick with Gnome2 in RH8. Or completely blow away the GUIs altogether and get the stock KDE and install. But the Gnome2 configuration in RH8 is very good I believe.

Here's an interesting read on installation comparison between XP, Win2k, RedHat 7.3, and RedHat 8 for n00bs:

http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/1021.redhat8.html

Actually that's just the RH8 part (part 3). There are links at the bottom of the page for the other installs. It's obviously a story on a Linux web site but it is very unbiased in my opinion.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
I would agree with XP User

did anybody else spot this? what's the world coming to?????   :eek:    :confused:    :eek:    :confused:    :eek:    :confused:

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
did anybody else spot this? what's the world coming to?????

Hey, I only disagree with people if they are full of shit. Some people can be full of shit most of the time but occasionally they slip up and will say something that is true. I have to agree with them in those few cases. And I think XP User is showing signs of coming around. He still has confusing relapses but he's making progress.