thelinuxlink.net

Hey, Linc, about my comment on last night's IRC.... more than anything, I was just bustin' your chops about KDE. So my apologies for being a bit "brash".

I will say that KDE has been quite slow on my PII test PC with other distros. and in those instances, a lighter desktop / window manager was much more practical. I like KDE, but up to this point, it was just too slow to run practically on this older box.

However, I was very impressed with the speed of KDE 3.5 on the same PC once I installed Arch. It performs so much better, so much so that the benefits of using KDE far outweigh the "sluggishness" of the PC (a 400Mhz PII with 196MB of RAM).

It still takes about 8 - 12 seconds to launch Konqueror (for example), however this is much faster that I've ever been able to get KDE to perform on this PC before. So, I'll stand by my first remark that KDE "screams" on this box now running Arch. It obviously doesn't perform as well as on my 1.2Ghz system, but it's all relative to what you're used to.

All in all, Linc, I really would be interested in hearing your opinion on Arch Linux (good or bad). That really is why we all listen to the show in the first place.... right?

Judland wrote:Hey, Linc, about my comment on last night's IRC.... more than anything, I was just bustin' your chops about KDE. So my apologies for being a bit "brash".

I will say that KDE has been quite slow on my PII test PC with other distros. and in those instances, a lighter desktop / window manager was much more practical. I like KDE, but up to this point, it was just too slow to run practically on this older box.

However, I was very impressed with the speed of KDE 3.5 on the same PC once I installed Arch. It performs so much better, so much so that the benefits of using KDE far outweigh the "sluggishness" of the PC (a 400Mhz PII with 196MB of RAM).

It still takes about 8 - 12 seconds to launch Konqueror (for example), however this is much faster that I've ever been able to get KDE to perform on this PC before. So, I'll stand by my first remark that KDE "screams" on this box now running Arch. It obviously doesn't perform as well as on my 1.2Ghz system, but it's all relative to what you're used to.

All in all, Linc, I really would be interested in hearing your opinion on Arch Linux (good or bad). That really is why we all listen to the show in the first place.... right?

Yeah, that distribution is fast becomming top on my list of *need to try soon*. Pat absolutely loves it as does Dann. My only problem right now is I just don't have a test system to try it out on, but hopefully I will after the upcoming weekend. Then the distro-wars will commence

For me, it kicks (k)ubuntu square in the ass. There's plenty of manual configing to do, but OMFG is it sweet when you get it where you want it. And like slack, just back up your /boot and /etc directories to a pen-drive, and you've got most of what makes your system unique at your fingertips (other than your data which you *are* backing up, right? )

I'm making the move this weekend. With my two friends, pizza and diet coke!

Judland wrote:It obviously doesn't perform as well as on my 1.2Ghz system, but it's all relative to what you're used to.

Hey Judland, if it wasn't because I didn't have the doe, I would send you an AMD64 machine or something, because I'm sitting here feeling guilty using my 2.2 GHz Athlon XP machine.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Hey Judland, if it wasn't because I didn't have the doe, I would send you an AMD64 machine or something, because I'm sitting here feeling guilty using my 2.2 GHz Athlon XP machine.

Well, thanks for the thought But, you know, by using Linux, there really hasn't been anything I can't do with my ol' 1.2Ghz machine. If I were using MS-Windows, yes I'd most likely be hurtin'. But I really haven't given upgrading my system a second thought.

I've also got a GeForce 2 3D card in it and it plays all the games I'm interested in just fine. So, I'm really wanting for nothing on this system.

Praise the Linux penguin!