Re: RH 7.3 or 9?
From: Dave Brown (dhbrown_at_hobbes.dhbrown.net)
Date: 10/21/03
- Next message: Newbie: "Re: Safe e-mail?"
- Previous message: Byron A Jeff: "Re: Why Other Linux do not have Auto-Configure as Knoppix?"
- In reply to: Timothy Murphy: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Next in thread: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Reply: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:04:27 GMT
In article <_67lb.1960$bD.8282@news.indigo.ie>, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>>>> When I said that Redhat 9 was slow I didn't mean that it was a
>>>> little slower like 30%, I meant that it was much much slower than Redhat
>>>> 7.3 or Mandrake 9, specifically 400% slower.
>
>>> What precisely takes 5 times as long under RH-9.0 as RH-7.3?
>
>> Launching applications is what takes 4X as long. Xemacs was the only one I
>> timed.
> ...
>
> As far as I know, applications are launched in exactly the same way
> in RH-7.3 and RH-9.0.
I suppose you could have a situation where the memory usage of whatever
applications are running in RH 9 is such that there's insufficient real
memory to start xemacs, in which case the machine has to page some
processes to disk. I don't recall if the OP gave any indication of his
memory usage.
I'd not be surprised that the default desktop in RH 9 might consume more
memory than the default desktop of RH 7.3.
-- Dave Brown Austin, TX
- Next message: Newbie: "Re: Safe e-mail?"
- Previous message: Byron A Jeff: "Re: Why Other Linux do not have Auto-Configure as Knoppix?"
- In reply to: Timothy Murphy: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Next in thread: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Reply: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: RH 7.3 or 9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
