Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
It's at times like these, that I am greatly relieved I'm not a Windows user:
http://www.genesis-x.nildram.co.uk/news/article00005.html
This brings up a question I have about Fedora. I recently installed FC1 on an 800 MHz Celeron with 128MB RAM. I'm a Linux newbie. The system is dual-booted with Windows ME. Yes, I know that I'm running below recommended specs.
Before going on, I am a convert to the Open Source ideology. I would like to see Linux (and open source software) succeed and dominate the market. After passing newbie status, I look forward to rolling up my sleeves and pitching in on coding.
The first thing I notice in Linux (running GNOME) is that it *seems* more sluggish than Windows. Menus take longer to pop up. Standard dialogs take longer to pop up. All sorts of things. When I click to start Mozilla, I have to check to see if my HD light is on -- otherwise I don't know if the OS registered my click! (In all fairness, Explorer isn't much better in this regard.)
A good example is switching windows. Everything is loaded in RAM -- no caching to the HD. When I change the focus to another open window, it's like I get a flicker-flicker-there. It takes around 500ms to make the change. In Windows, this is not so.
So here's the question: Is this normal for Fedora and/or Linux? Do I maybe have a bad video setting?
Yes, it is normal on ALL OSes on systems that are underpowered. Yours has inadequate ram and is likely using a lot of swap so performance takes a major hit. Spring the $40 or so and get an additional 256mb ram and see the huge difference.
Don't blame software for something you already said you know.
Otherwise, is it possible that Linux developers are prone to pushing the hardware, too? Honestly, I don't see why my 486/DX2 w/8MB is obsolete. What are we doing now that requires so much more horsepower? Are word processors now solving partial differential equations before they print?
It is not. You can still run redhat 5.X, 6.X and even 7.X versions on it.
Peace, Gabriel
