The Fast-Food Syndrome: The Linux Platform is Getting Fat

[Aloone_Jonez]

Oh and another thing, what percentage of system memory do you think an operating system shroud use by default?

I would say as little as possible, 10% would be acceptable.

A swap file should only be used when memory is running low.

Memory usage has grown disproportionally to hard disk space usage, this is clearly unacceptable.

When I mean Linux I mean the kernel, and all the other crap needed for a reasonable user interface. (X window manager, KDE or other desktop)

How would you define "Bloat"? I would say it's extra resources wasted with no extra features or crappy retarded features that no one REALLY NEEDS.

I can give examples of this in both Linux and Windows:

WinXP:
The fucking annoying search character.
Bitmaps an other shit on the folder displays.
You can turn all this shit off.
Even when you disable the animated search character you still have to put up with the search wizard for retards.

Red Hat 9:
The skins on the windows and GUI widgets. At least with windows you can turn these off, I gained some speed by changing the theme to Windows.

The X window manager seems to be the culprit, it's native theme even has skins. This is the sort of feature that some people of course love, it should be contained within another module and only loaded when the user requests it.

I would guess that the code for the crappy effects (menu animations and other eye candy) gets loaded even though I never use these "features".

[flap]

quote:I would say as little as possible, 10% would be acceptable.

So what's the point of having the other 90%? Linux uses utilises most of your memory because it can, not because it has to.

 

quote:The X window manager seems to be the culprit, it's native theme even has skins. This is the sort of feature that some people of course love, it should be contained within another module and only loaded when the user requests it.

You can turn all of that off; just don't use KDE/GNOME.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
This is so true, Linsux and Winbloze are both bloatware.

It's stupid you shouldn't have to buy a new PC every three years to run the latest software, you don't with any other appliance. I've  not up graded my CD player for over 14 years, and it still plays the latest CDs.

A history of my past upgrades:

1993
386 33MHz 4MB RAM, 43MD disk, 640x480 16 colours, DOS 6 & Win 3.1
Soon upgraded to 8MB RAM, 800x600 64K colours (slow) sound card CD-ROM drive.

1994
New mother bored upgraded to 486 100MHz, 100MB disk.

1997
P200 32MB RAM, 4GB disk, Win 95.

2004
1800MHz, 256MB RAM, Xpee, 40GB disk, DVD ROM CD Burner.

I was excited I thought no more swap files surly 256MB is more than enough, disapointed with Xpee, 336MB swap file             .

Soon bought another 80GB disk to run, Redhat 9, disapointed with Linux, it guzzels just as much if not even more memory.

Notice a pattern. - My upgrades are becoming less an less frequent. I have never bothered with the latest hardware. I only upgrade when I have to.

The only thing I do with my new PC that I couldn't do with my old one is burn CDs & watch DVDs.

Fuck this for a lark, time to hop of the tread mill, I will not upgrade for another 10 years or maybe even never. By then I hope that Windows is on it's death bed and Linux has got it's act together, or some better OS has replaced it.

It is a good thing that our computers are so fast and high-tech these days. If they weren't we would still be playing shitty looking(pixelated) FPS games like doom, pixelated TPS like the original tomb raider, 2D side scrollers, etc. Nowadays our games look beautiful(damn near lifelike) due to having such powerful hardware. Hardware that wouldn't be so powerful if it wan't for OS makers(namely MS) upping the minimum sys requirements each time they released a new OS.

Nowadays a person who does professional Audio/Video/image work can get alot more done in less time thanks to the speed of modern computers(not to mention the better hardware gives them better quality work as well).

Come to think of it. Any real work people use a computer for gets done alot faster now than it ever did back in the day due to our hardware being so powerful.

I also will add that prices are for the better now.

Back in the late 80's a complete 386 system w/8MB of Ram, less than 200MB hard drive, shitty video subsystem, etc. could've been as expensive as $5,000. The scenario was the same with the 486 when it was 1st introduced. The prices started getting a little better when in the Pentium age.

Nowadays though we can get/build a complete system that will simply run rings around that old stuff thousands of times in a minute for less than $700.

I remember back in the day a 16MB stick of 66mhz 72-pin EDO memory went for over $130.

Nowadays a high quality name-brand 512MB stick of 200mhz Double Data Rate(effectively 400mhz) ram(PC3200) can be had for less than $100. Obviously the modern, cheaper memory is infinitley better than what could be had for more back then.

The same thing goes for hard drives. Back in the day a 2GB hard drive could cost over $200. Now $200 will buy you a hard drive over 200GB. The old 2GB hard drives ran in PIO mode(mode 4 went no faster than 12MB per sec. and PIO mode used alot of CPU cycles). The modern 200GB+ hard drives are capable of doing 133MB per sec(PATA/133) or 150MB per sec(SATA) plus drive work/transfers do not use many CPU cycles at all because the IDE/SATA bus is doing all of the work kind of like how a GPU/APU takes the load off of the CPU because the GPU(Graphics Processing Unit/APU(Audio Processing Unit) is a little CPU on the Sound/Video card that is there to do all of the work of the card that the CPU used to do on old video/sound cards.
 
 
The evolution of technology is by no means bad and kudos to MS, game makers and professional work software makers for driving technology to be so fast and cheap these days. Back in the day you had to be rich to own a computer because of how much the damn thngs costed. Nowadays 90% of households hae a computer because they are very affordable now.

Back in the day the Internet was something rare and special. Nowadyas the Internet is a nessecisty.

Ok, I'll quit rambling because it is all going the same place. Evolution is not bad at all.      

[ July 07, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]

[hm_murdock]

quote:old machines rock!!!

DAMN RIGHT! ::high five::

 

quote:This is so true, Linsux and Winbloze are both bloatware.

The stupid names... WITH THEM... STOP!

 

quote:It's stupid you shouldn't have to buy a new PC every three years to run the latest software, you don't with any other appliance. I've not up graded my CD player for over 14 years, and it still plays the latest CDs.

I have an iMac 500, and a 1GHz P3. Neither of them are so far gone that they're useless. The iMac is getting there, thanks to Apple's greed and ever-upward-spiralling reqs.

If there's any OS that has absurdly climbing reqs, it's OS X. When it was announced, it was going to be "for all PowerPC Macs", then it was for 604s and up, then it was for G3s and up, then it was for G4s, and they threw G3 users a bone and didn't lock them out. Now they're already starting to DROP INSTALLER SUPPORT for the early G3s.

Oh, and ever release of OS X gets more bloated with "features" and less stable.

Those are the reasons I snagged this 1GHz P3. XP still runs better than OS X on comparable hardware. Linux runs even better still.

 

quote:A history of my past upgrades:

1993
386 33MHz 4MB RAM, 43MD disk, 640x480 16 colours, DOS 6 & Win 3.1
Soon upgraded to 8MB RAM, 800x600 64K colours (slow) sound card CD-ROM drive.

Ow. I was running a 486-33 with 8MB, upgraded to 24 in 94.

 

quote:1994
New mother bored upgraded to 486 100MHz, 100MB disk.

Motherboard, not "mother bored".

 

quote:1997
P200 32MB RAM, 4GB disk, Win 95.

Your bad for not running NT

 

quote:2004
1800MHz, 256MB RAM, Xpee, 40GB disk, DVD ROM CD Burner.

Get more memory.

 

quote:I was excited I thought no more swap files surly 256MB is more than enough, disapointed with Xpee, 336MB swap file [FU] .

You could have a full GB and you'll still have a swap file. It has nothing to do with OS efficiency, but instead with the PC memory model. Protected mode uses flat, paged memory. To make as much room as possible for other apps, OSes page unused parts of themselves and idle apps off to disk. Every application thinks that it has 4GB of memory, and the OS does its best to keep up that illusion.

BTW, I run 512MB and don't have disk thrashing in XP or Linux

 

quote:Soon bought another 80GB disk to run, Redhat 9, disapointed with Linux, it guzzels just as much if not even more memory.

More. Memory. Get. 512MB. At. Least.

Why the fuck would you run 256MB? That's shitty.

 

quote:Notice a pattern. - My upgrades are becoming less an less frequent. I have never bothered with the latest hardware. I only upgrade when I have to.

The only thing I do with my new PC that I couldn't do with my old one is burn CDs & watch DVDs.

Fuck this for a lark, time to hop of the tread mill, I will not upgrade for another 10 years or maybe even never. By then I hope that Windows is on it's death bed and Linux has got it's act together, or some better OS has replaced it.

Doubtful either way. Windows isn't going anywhere. It's improved greatly over the last few releases, but we'll see how Longhorn goes.

As for Linux, its rate of improvement is phenomenal. Within a year or two, it'll surpass Windows for ease of install and usage.

 

quote:Oh and another thing, what percentage of system memory do you think an operating system shroud use by default?

By default? Wait... there's a setting that lets you choose? lol

There is no "default setting"

 

quote:I would say as little as possible, 10% would be acceptable.

That'd be nice. Now go install Slack or Debian sarge and run an OS that uses 10% of your memory. It happens all the time.

 

quote:A swap file should only be used when memory is running low.

You mean, the way they've always been used?

 

quote:Memory usage has grown disproportionally to hard disk space usage, this is clearly unacceptable.

But you can buy 512MB of RAM for $50, so it's not really that big of a deal.

 

quote:When I mean Linux I mean the kernel, and all the other crap needed for a reasonable user interface. (X window manager, KDE or other desktop)

X11 is not a window manager.

 

quote:How would you define "Bloat"? I would say it's extra resources wasted with no extra features or crappy retarded features that no one REALLY NEEDS.

If you don't need something, remove it.

 

quote:I can give examples of this in both Linux and Windows:

WinXP:
The fucking annoying search character.
Bitmaps an other shit on the folder displays.
You can turn all this shit off.
Even when you disable the animated search character you still have to put up with the search wizard for retards.

Search wizard for retards? What's wrong with the serach pane? it's certainly quite nice IMHO to have your search controls over there, out of the way, and that lovely large folder view that you can set to any available view.

 

quote:Red Hat 9:
The skins on the windows and GUI widgets. At least with windows you can turn these off, I gained some speed by changing the theme to Windows.

I assume you're referring to Bluecurve? Or do you mean the native gtk theme support? This doesn't slow it down at all. It's not a "skin". gtk themes are full libaries that define how gtk draws GUI elements. No theme is any faster or slower than any other.

If you want fast, then run twm and don't run any "nice looking" apps.

 

quote:The X window manager seems to be the culprit, it's native theme even has skins. This is the sort of feature that some people of course love, it should be contained within another module and only loaded when the user requests it.

X11 has no "native theme". X11 does not support skins. X11 simply handles screen drawing. It's quite possible you're running a generic, unaccelerated X server. I don't think you ever told us what your vid card was.

 

quote:I would guess that the code for the crappy effects (menu animations and other eye candy) gets loaded even though I never use these "features".

You're a dipshit.

[flap]

quote:That'd be nice. Now go install Slack or Debian sarge and run an OS that uses 10% of your memory. It happens all the time.

No distribution uses only 10% of your memory. What would be the point of wasting available memory by leaving 90% of it unused? The system utilises all available memory because there's no reason not to.

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


So what's the point of having the other 90%?

To run your applications, the OS shouldn't be the main strain on system resources.

 

quote: Hardware that wouldn't be so powerful if it wan't for OS makers(namely MS) upping the minimum sys requirements each time they released a new OS.

Partly true I admit but hardware wouldn't need to be so powerful if the OS handled the resources efficiently.

 

quote: Nowadays a person who does professional Audio/Video/image work can get alot more done in less time thanks to the speed of modern computers(not to mention the better hardware gives them better quality work as well).

Come to think of it. Any real work people use a computer for gets done alot faster now than it ever did back in the day due to our hardware being so powerful

And they would get a lot more done if it wasn't for the OS hogging way too much memory.

 

quote: I also will add that prices are for the better now.

Back in the late 80's a complete 386 system w/8MB of Ram, less than 200MB hard drive, shitty video subsystem, etc. could've been as expensive as $5,000. The scenario was the same with the 486 when it was 1st introduced. The prices started getting a little better when in the Pentium age.

Nowadays though we can get/build a complete system that will simply run rings around that old stuff thousands of times in a minute for less than $700.

I remember back in the day a 16MB stick of 66mhz 72-pin EDO memory went for over $130.

Nowadays a 512MB stick of 200mhz Double Data Rate(effectively 400mhz) ram(PC3200) can be had for less than $100. Obviously the modern, cheaper memory is infinitley better than what could be had for more back then.

The same thing goes for hard drives. Back in the day a 2GB hard drive could cost over $200. Now $200 will buy you a hard drive over 200GB. The old 2GB hard drives ran in PIO mode(mode 4 went no faster than 12MB per sec. and PIO mode used alot of CPU cycles). The modern 200GB+ hard drives are capable of doing 133MB per sec(PATA/133) or 150MB per sec(SATA) plus drive work/transfers do not use many CPU cycles at all because the IDE/SATA bus is doing all of the work kind of like how a GPU/APU takes the load off of the CPU because the GPU(Graphics Processing Unit/APU(Audio Processing Unit) is a little CPU on the Sound/Video card that is there to do all of the work of the card that the CPU used to do on old video/sound cards.

All too true, but you would get even better value for money and a lot more performance if the OS could handle these resources more efficiently.

Oh and by the way I was wrong earlier when I said  

quote: you don't with any other appliance.

Well you do need to upgrade your games console every now and again to play the latest games, but no where near as often as your PC when you want to play the latest PC games.

That's another thing the Xbox isn't very powerful, when you compare it to the PC you would need to run the same game.

Do you know why?
Because the OS on an Xbox is compact, I bet there's no swap file either, it probably only uses 10% of the system resources.

Also the Xbox rules, and do you know why?
Competition, is the answer, and lots of it too.
Windows blows, M$ don't even need to bother to make it good and people will buy it, because they feel that they have no choice.
On the other hand the Xbox has had to compete with the Game Cube and PS2.

Evolution is definitely a good thing, but why should I have to upgrade when all I really want to do is surf the net and word-processing, plus burn a few CDs.

I could do all of this quite comfortably on an old P500 with 64MB RAM.

I don't do "professional Audio/Video/image work"
I might play the odd game on my PC, but certainly not the latest game, to do that I would buy a console.

With Wronghorn I would need a new PC just to do word-processing and burn CDs.

Why should I bother upgrading when the OS will ultimately gobble up my investment?

I can do all of the above with my current PC.

I really hope the day will never come when I need a realy powerful PC just to run openoffice.org.

I'm not saying that we should all use 386s of course, but 300-600MHz with 64-128MB RAM would be ok for basic stuff.

[ July 07, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

[hm_murdock]

quote:No distribution uses only 10% of your memory. What would be the point of wasting available memory by leaving 90% of it unused? The system utilises all available memory because there's no reason not to.

I meant to say, they can run in 10% of his installed memory. I ran a Slack server in 24MB of RAM back in 1999.

Aloone:

I do anything I'll ever want to do on a 1GHz and a 500MHz machine, and I'm running the newest versions of stuff. I've got far from the best hardware, but I still run the best software.

If I can do it, so can you. You're bitching about something that's not going to change.

If you don't like how "bloated" Red Hat is, then install Debian or Slack... if you dare. These "bloated" OSes exist because so many people need to do so many varied things that they have to have the ability to do it all. If you don't need some part of Linux, get rid of it. I say get Debian or Slackware if you're up to installing them. They'll make you much happier once their up and running.

[ July 07, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]

[solarismka]

quote:
It is a good thing that our computers are so fast and high-tech these days. If they weren't we would still be playing shitty looking(pixelated) FPS games like doom, pixelated TPS like the original tomb raider, 2D side scrollers, etc. Nowadays our games look beautiful(damn near lifelike) due to having such powerful hardware. Hardware that wouldn't be so powerful if it wan't for OS makers(namely MS) upping the minimum sys requirements each time they released a new OS.

Or rather than spending HUGE amount of cash just tp play games.  One can go out and get a concole and have those amazing graphics and such for a far cheaper price, no BSOD's, spyware or other stability/security issues!


 

quote:
Nowadays a person who does professional Audio/Video/image work can get alot more done in less time thanks to the speed of modern computers(not to mention the better hardware gives them better quality work as well).

A person that does professional work usualy don't run out to buy the most expensive machine just to do the same tasks he/she could do before.  Expecualy when those tasks get completed by the same time.

WindowsXP does everything and in the same time as older machines, yet XP needs huge amount of memory.

KDE3.2 and above can now work fater than its older versions and on the same old machine!


 

quote:
Come to think of it. Any real work people use a computer for gets done alot faster now than it ever did back in the day due to our hardware being so powerful.

I see it differnetly.  My p4 with a 256 mb ram is basicaly the same speed as my P2 with 96mb of ram.

A p3 with 128 mb of ram running Linux usualy runs faster with the same mahcine running XP.

hardware isn't important to get things done these days.  The OS is.

 
 

quote:
I also will add that prices are for the better now.

Back in the late 80's a complete 386 system w/8MB of Ram, less than 200MB hard drive, shitty video subsystem, etc. could've been as expensive as $5,000. The scenario was the same with the 486 when it was 1st introduced. The prices started getting a little better when in the Pentium age.

hmmmm.  A standard XP machine STIll costs arount $3000 dollars.  or you can get a laptop that costs around $3-to 5000 dollars.  I wouldn't call that 'cheep.'  Expecialy when you factor in the monthly repair costs.

 

quote:
Nowadays though we can get/build a complete system that will simply run rings around that old stuff thousands of times in a minute for less than $700.

Well yes.  But comparing an old 486 with a p4 makes a huge difference.  What I am saying is even if you use a p3 with a 128 mb of ram and a 40gig hard drive using the latest M$ OS compared with the same machine using Linux or something there is quite a difference in speed and usability!
 
 

quote:
I remember back in the day a 16MB stick of 66mhz 72-pin EDO memory went for over $130.

128 SD mb ram still fetches in $110 bucks.  Not that much difference from then and now.

 

quote:
Nowadays a high quality name-brand 512MB stick of 200mhz Double Data Rate(effectively 400mhz) ram(PC3200) can be had for less than $100.

My local bestbuy and staples state otherwize

 

quote:
 Obviously the modern, cheaper memory is infinitley better than what could be had for more back then.

Yes.  So why does the same quality of work takes so much more?

 

quote:
The same thing goes for hard drives. Back in the day a 2GB hard drive could cost over $200. Now $200 will buy you a hard drive over 200GB.

Well thats because then 2gigs was the biggest now 200 is.  And you see the price has not changed.


 

quote:
 The old 2GB hard drives ran in PIO mode(mode 4 went no faster than 12MB per sec. and PIO mode used alot of CPU cycles). The modern 200GB+ hard drives are capable of doing 133MB per sec(PATA/133) or 150MB per sec(SATA) plus drive work/transfers do not use many CPU cycles at all because the IDE/SATA bus is doing all of the work kind of like how a GPU/APU takes the load off of the CPU because the GPU(Graphics Processing Unit/APU(Audio Processing Unit) is a little CPU on the Sound/Video card that is there to do all of the work of the card that the CPU used to do on old video/sound cards.
 

Thats fine, as that is the evolution of hardware. It still doesn't make sence to see XP slow to a crawl or you have to have all of that just to do the same thing in the same amount of time.
 
 

quote:
The evolution of technology is by no means bad and kudos to MS,

Well if we are going to congratulate them.  Thanks for making your newest OS so easy to f*ck with!  


But by no means does M$ have anything to do with hardware.


 

quote:
 game makers

Not realy -> see concole.

 

quote:
 and professional work software makers for driving technology to be so fast and cheap these days.

fast yes, cheap no.


 

quote:
 Back in the day you had to be rich to own a computer because of how much the damn thngs costed.

You still do now.  There are people that takle loans out to cover the cost.  Or arange some other financial support.

 

quote:
 Nowadays 90% of households hae a computer because they are very affordable now.

Over 90% of people have TV's.  Does that mean that they are cheap?  Nope!

A plasma TV can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars!

 

quote:
Back in the day the Internet was something rare and special.

Still is in most countries.  Only canada and Finland are the two most wired countries in the world!

 

quote:
 Nowadyas the Internet is a nessecisty.

That depends what country you live in.  The U.K. seems to be getting along without it.

Meaning that its is there but not like it is dependent on like it is here in Canada.
 

[ July 07, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ][/QB][/QUOTE]

[hm_murdock]

That's just your opinion.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
This is so true, Linsux and Winbloze are both bloatware.

I use linux and not linsux. So your non-existing Linsux OS is bloated. Try Linux (I never used Linsux)

 

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
It's stupid you shouldn't have to buy a new PC every three years to run the latest software, you don't with any other appliance. I've  not up graded my CD player for over 14 years, and it still plays the latest CDs.

I still have my first 386 running still the same Linux(still fully working).
Even better: Using linux I now can use some older 286 systems (using only floppies) .

My CD players never lasted more than 4 years.

 

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:

The only thing I do with my new PC that I couldn't do with my old one is burn CDs & watch DVDs.

 
You can run all new applications on your 'old' 386?
It's mostly games that make people buy new CPU's.

PS: Try this:
1. Install slackware.(only install what you need)
http://www.slackware.com/

2. Build your own kernel(this really isn't that hard)
http://kernel.org/

3. Be very happy with your very powerfull 'slackbox'.  

[ July 07, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[solarismka]

quote:My CD players never lasted more than 4 years.  

VERY true!  Sometimes they last even less

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
One can go out and get a concole and have those amazing graphics and such for a far cheaper price, no BSOD's, spyware or other stability/security issues!

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the Xbox crashes a lot.  

But seriously, even my PS2 locks up quite a bit, at least in True Crime.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


You seem to be forgetting the fact that the Xbox crashes a lot.    

But seriously, even my PS2 locks up quite a bit, at least in True Crime.

Very true!  Forgot one.      

[Zombie9920]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember back in the day a 16MB stick of 66mhz 72-pin EDO memory went for over $130.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

128 SD mb ram still fetches in $110 bucks. Not that much difference from then and now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nowadays a high quality name-brand 512MB stick of 200mhz Double Data Rate(effectively 400mhz) ram(PC3200) can be had for less than $100.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My local bestbuy and staples state otherwize

Well then your local staples and bestbuy are ripping you guys off.    

Crucial 512MB PC3200 DDR Ram - $81
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=20-146-541&DEPA=0

Now where in the hell do you find a $3000 XP machine(unless you are buying from rip-offs like alienware). I never see comps go for more than $1000 at the most(alot of the machines you can get are $700 and less). I built this machine for way less than $1000.

P4 2.4C GHZ,800mhz FSB, HT o/ced to 3.2ghz at the moment on stock cooling
Abit IS7 motherboard
2 x 256MB Crucial PC3200 DDR Ram(Configured in Dual Channel DDR mode)
100GB Western Digital IDE Hard drive
80GB Maxtor SATA Hard drive
52x24x52 CD-RW
16x DVD-Rom(getting ready to add a DVD burner to the comp)
ATI Radeon 9800XT video card
SB Audigy 2(fuck that built in audio crap)
built in Ethernet/network controller
3x Firewire ports built into the board(2 6-pin 1 4-pin)
Sony floppy drive(meh, who uses floppies nowadays?)
8x USB 2.0 ports built in
Antec 460w Truepower PSU


It is a fast mother too.    

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Aloone_Jonez]

Firstly anyone who says that Linux isn't bloated because they can run it on a 386 off floppys, is  clearly retarded. I could say that Windows isn't bloated because you can run it of a floppy disk. (well in DOS mode at least)

When I mean 10% of the total memory I mean the OS should, only consume, or boots up into, or only need 10% of the total system memory to store it's code in. Leaving the rest free, for you, the user to run your software in.

Can Linux run on 286s?
Forgive me if I'm wrong as I'm still new to linux but aren't 286s 16bit processors, and Linux is a 32bit OS?

 

quote: You're a dipshit.

No I'm just new to linux, you shouln't have to fuck around with loads of settings and recompile shit, just to tweak the system, install software or device drivers.

I know there's no "default setting" but you can alter what gets loaded. When I mean by default, I mean the configuration the installer chooses for you.

 

quote: No theme is any faster or slower than any other.

Why?
Surly a theme consisting of purely solid colours and primitive shapes takes far less clock cycles, and hogs far less memory than a more fancy theme with the pretty textures and curves of Bluecurve.

The reason why I was blaming X11, is because I have set KDE to use a simple Windows theme, I don't care what you say but my system run faster. The highlight on the menu text is just a plain blue colour, when I use some of the graphical X11 configuration utility's, the highlight reverts back to the textured one, used in the Bluecurve theme.

 

quote: I don't think you ever told us what your vid card was.

http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000887&p=2

I'm not going to say it again as this post is already long enough.

And you JimmyJames, call me immature for saying Linsux and Winbloze, your no better for being overly critical of my spelling. I can't help suffering from dyslexia, I do my best by spell checking all my posts in openoffice.

256MB RAM isn't too bad, Xpee dosn't run slowly, it's more than usable, it only runs slowly when the shit arse Xpee theme together with all the other crap skins and effects are enabled.

I only bought this computer a few months ago, I know it wasn't top of the range then, but already people are telling me to upgrade.

NOOOO!

I DON'T SEE WHY I SHOULD SPEND ANOTHER FUCKING PENNY!

This pc is more than fast enough to suit my needs Xpee isn't that slow and unresponsive. It runs Firefox and openoffice fairly well, It can burn CDs well too.

I was happy with my P200, the only reason why I upgraded the whole unit because I fucked the old one up!

I originally just wanted to add a CD burner, when the cover was off I spilt my drink.

If it wasn't for that I would still be stuck with a P200 running Win95 and M$ office!

Back in the day used to be a bit of a computer geek, I liked seeing what I could run on the shitteyest hardware.

I remember, and I know this sound's unbelievable.

One rainy day I was bored (correct spelling I hope)

I decided to install Win3.1 on a 4MB RAM drive on a 8MB 486.

It worked too! lol

I didn't have good internet access. (it cost 1p per min)

I didn't even know that Linux existed.

About 5 years ago I totally lost interest in computers when I did a computing A level, what was a hobby had became hard work, I hated it.

Until very recently I didn't know how much computers had evolved, as I wasn't using them for work.

The only PC I used was my P200.

We switched telecommunications provider to get unmetered Internet access, bought this new PC, then I discovered this website along with Linux.

I was happy enough with my old P200.

I'm sure at least some of you people must be able to remember the old 16 bit way, where you had just 640K for your programs to run in, you had to swap your code in and out of extended memory if you wanted more than that.

I still haven't regained any interest, bloatware has put me off even more.

Now we have lot's of memory and what do we do with it?
Waste it on running bloat.
It's just disgusting.


By the way Viper, just a few questions:

What do you use your computer for?

I know your an MS suporter, I respect you for showing your face here, after all everyone's entitled to their own opinion;

How do you support MS?

And why?

Please don't be afraid to answer these questions.

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]