Am Mi, den 05.05.2004 schrieb bugler@xxxxxxxxxx um 16:20: > > > 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, > > > > 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. > > I don't think that this is the case, and here is why: When running the system > monitor for this test there is about 111 MB of 128 MB physical RAM being used. > On the hard drive there is a 256 MB swap allocated, and about 56 MB being used. > > When I switch focus from one window to another (e.g. say from Mozilla to > Mozilla Mail) there is about a 400-500 ms lag. The RAM is _NOT_ caching to the > hard drive for info -- the HD light never flickers. > > So, with all due respect, I have a hard time believing that swapping is the > problem in this instance. If I were switching between Calc and Mozilla --- > listening to the HD crank away --- then yes it is clearly a RAM issue. But in > this case, I'm not so sure. i'm running xp and fc1 side by side on a pIIIm 650 with 192 MB Ram, and xp is still much more responsive especially under "heavy" load (means office, mailclient and browser open, maybe even playing an mp3 or divx) star office takes _ages_ to load (~60 sec.), evolution is also a ressource-hog and epiphany loads slow. in my case i guess it's because swapping under linux is slower (using and older 2.6 - kernel.). but i agree that even when there's not swapping involved, gnome and the mentioned apps still are behaving slower than their windows counterparts. with the new evolution, staroffice and hopefully some gtk improvements and refined kernel it hope it will getting better. or i might buy a new, faster laptop...;-)
