Re: Why I dumped Linux and Went Back to Windows.

From: Tom Shelton (tshelton_at_YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.net)
Date: 02/24/05


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:43:54 -0600

On 2005-02-24, Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:50:55 +0000, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>>>>> So I tried firefox. I quickly discovered that browsing was so slow it
>>>>>> was pathetic. A little research showed I needed to turn off IPV6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firefox, while not as peppy as Konqueror, is certainly a nice web
>>>>> browser, and while light on features, they are easy to add-on. And
>>>>> while I used it I certainly didn't find that *browsing* was slow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It seems fine for me on Gentoo. Of course, I disabled IPV6 on
>>>> everything. I have no use for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Funny, I didn't have to do that with Windows. Same firefox and it
>>>>>> works great with Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Liam - I know you aren't going to believe this. I'm sure you'll call me
>>>> a liar - but I'm going to say it anyway... Firefox works much, much
>>>> better on XP then it does on Linux - at least in my experience.
>>>
>>> I can't possibly imagine how.
>>
>> 1. It crashes on Linux, not often but every couple of days it will just
>> disappear. I have never once had it crash on XP, and I'm running it on
>> at least 5 XP installations. I suppose this could be a result of the
>> compiler optimizations I have set... Hmmm, maybe I'll try and emerge it
>> again with slightly toned down optimizations (not that I have them set
>> wild or anything - but this has been known to help with other packages).
>
>
> Well, this is true, although it's a bit more rare in my experience than
> you make out. Especially the 1.0 version. Still, I'd agree Konqueror is
> more stable. Or Ephiphany (which is rather minimal) on GNOME.
>
>

Epiphany isn't really that bad... I just like firefox for all around
browsing though. And as far as crashing, like I said, it has gotten
better and it may be a result of excessive optimization... I'm going to
try and reinstall it with less optimization, and see if that makes a
difference.

>>
>> 2. It loads faster on XP.
>
> Pre-loading perhaps?
>

Why would firefox be preloaded? I thought only IE and office did that
:)

>> It also seems to render somewhat faster -
>> but that could be my imagination.
>
> Probably.
>
>

Like I said - it seems to be faster, but I haven't done any benchmarks
to prove it.

>>
>> 3. It doesn't have all the strange input anomolies on XP (like not
>> gaining focus on an alt-tab, grabbing on to the mouse sometimes when
>> crossing a text field, refusing to give up focus on an alt-tab, etc).
>
> I never really noticed any "imput anomalies" when I used it.
>

Again, they've gotten better, but their still there. By the way, I also
notice some of these in Mozilla as well (particularly the alt-tab thing).

>>
>> All of the above have gotten much better since I installed the final 1.0
>> release, but the still persist.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I also noticed that I could not play CD's until I created a /mnt
>>>>>> directory in which xmms would mount my audio cds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how I've never had to do that. Ever. I've never once had to
>>>>> *mount* an audio CD to play it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't have to create the mount point either, mostly because I
>>>> already had created a /mnt/cdrom for other uses. But, I did have to
>>>> tell xmms about it. I'm on Gentoo, so I expect this sort of thing -
>>>> but I would immagine that SuSE would set this up in the default
>>>> installation?
>>>
>>> Likely, did on my older version of SuSE before I switched back to
>>> Mandrake. And on Mandrake I never had any problem with audio. Just put
>>> them in, and they work. DVD works similarly, didn't have to tinker
>>> with mountpoints or other garbage, just put them in and they work.
>>>
>>>
>> I did to use xine - but, again, I'm on gentoo so you sometimes have to
>> do this stuff. I would expect that commercial or more user oriented
>> distro's would be more automated about this. I don't know, because I
>> never used one long enough to care. I won't lie, I wasn't impressed by
>> my brief stint with SuSE, Mandrake wouldn't install properly, Lycoris
>> fsckd my system (thank goodnes for Knoppix), and Red Hat 7.2 and 9.0
>> were so pathetically slow that I gave up on them. Gentoo has been the
>> only distro I've tried were I've been able to get everything I wanted to
>> work (except scanner) to work and wasn't slow compared to XP on the same
>> hardware. I know you won't believe that, but that has been my
>> experience. I'm not trying to knock linux here, just relating my
>> personal experience so far.
>
>
> I do find it hard for anyone to be not impressed with SuSE, and for
> Mandrake to not install properly.

Well, it was like Mandrake 8 something or other. And it kept hanging
while it tried to update it self (even though, I kept telling it not
to). It would hang for a while and then crash and never come back up.
About the 3rd time I tried, it actually booted up, but then X kept
crashing. So, I just gave up on it. Actually, I did install Mandrake
once under MS's Virtual PC. It looked ok...

To be honest, Liam, I'm not that thrilled about RPM based distro's now
that I have had a taste of Gentoo - Yast seemed nixe, but I just like
Gentoo's portage better. That is probably why I didn't really like SuSE
that much. It also didn't start off on the right foot by messing up the
boot sector so that XP wouldn't boot anymore. Fortuantely, it was a
known issue with 2.6 kernels and parted, and SuSE provided a fix for it.

> Mandrake is about on par with SuSE on
> hardware. It's a damn fine distro. I also cannot imagine anyone calling
> either *slow* in comparison to Windows XP.
>

Well I just did... SuSE 9.1 most definately was. I don't know about
Mandrake cause it never installed right on my machine. RH wasn't to hot
either.

> I have never been impressed by the speed of XP when I've seen it in action.
>

I've never had too many issues... XP is somewhat sluggish on the little
900 MHz Duron I have it running on one machine at work - but that only
has 128 MB of RAM...

>>
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> I tried Openoffice, which seems to take an eternity to load even on
>>>>>> a P4 machine.
>>>>>> What a dog!!
>>>>>> It seems to work ok once it loads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly not slow here, but then Open Office is now considered
>>>>> tightly integrated into GNOME, and I run GNOME....so it has much more
>>>>> pep than if I was running KDE as my DE.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... It doesn't seem to load any faster in Gnome for me - that's
>>>> why for general word processing I've switched to Abiword. OO is just
>>>> to slow - I still use it to open office documents on Linux though.
>>>> Besides, I thought OO2 was going to integrate into both KDE and Gnome
>>>> natively.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, maybe the newer OO is just faster than the old one I was using
>>> before...but it certainly seems to work better in GNOME than KDE
>>> though. Maybe it's my imagination.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know what version your using, but I'm on 1.1.4 I believe...
>> Don't get me wrong, there was significant improvement from 1.0 to 1.1,
>> but it still loads slowly compared to Abiword.
>
>
> Well, I never claimed that Open Office was faster than Abiword....it *is*
> a lightweight app after all, more streamlined, and with fewer features. As
> an all inclusive "office suite" application OO is nice, if you *just* need
> a word processor then yes, Abiword is superior.
>

I guess I can agree on that. I just wish OO could be made somewhat
faster, then it wouldn't be just nice, it might actually be great.

>>
>>
>>>> By the way... Do you really like Gnome?
>>>
>>> Yeah. I was using SuSE 8.2 (which didn't include GNOME and I wasn't
>>> going to go to the hassle, especially given my prior experience) before
>>> switching back to Mandrake which I had used before, and my experience
>>> on Mandrake had been entirely pre-2.0 GNOME. Coming back to Mandrake
>>> (10.1) I gave it a try and....it's nice.
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I'm a little soured on Gnome... It won't stop displaying my KDE
>> desktop icons and it does it some ugly icon. When I delete them from
>> gnome, it deletes them in KDE. Basically, they don't seem to play nice
>> on the same system - well, at least Gnome doesn't seem to play nice with
>> KDE.
>
> I have not had this problem on Mandrake. KDE and GNOME desktops are
> entirely seperate.

Well I do on Gentoo... A quick google search shows that I'm not the
only one, but on the RH Bugzilla they blame it on KDE. What ever :)

-- 
Tom Shelton