The good news is that FC3t2 installed without any problems on my toshiba 4005CDS (circa 1998). I couldn't get installed using burned isos although the same ones worked on a desktop. However after burning the boot.iso and choosing and ftp install, it all went on down smooth as silk.
This machine has only 96mb of ram and 233 mhz of cpu.. That is not enough for FC3t2 in full gui I don't think. I'm noticing loading the gnome or kde desktop is really a chore. Almost feels like I'll see smoke rising ... it seems to be working so hard.
This machine is a dual booter that has had winxp win2k and win98 installed... now running win2k on the other partition. What is a little disconcerting here is that the win2k and winxp when it was installed showed considerably more pep loading the desktop or the browser and other heavily gui chores.
I'm a long time linux user and am used to linux being faster than the `other' os's. I think we are seeing a sort of bloatation coming on due to peoples desire for heavily gui stuff.
But then again... At least I'm comfortable at the cmdline so probably won't use the linux gui unless I really need it.
Its kind of sad though to see the passing of linux the lean mean fighting machine. Especially when a full featured microsoft product is able to out proform a full featured Fedora on lesser hardware.
Just my observation of course, I have'nt bench tested or done any really scientific comparison, but a huge delay getting logged into X while the desktop takes form is definitely considerably slower than the same process on win2k and winxp on this particular machine.
Starting a terminal ... again a major pause. Browser... even worse.
While I agree that the desktops have become more bloated...
Quite often beta builds are slower and larger due to the way they are built for debugging.
The open source systems at least give you a choice. If you want to, you can still use the light desktops from the past. Not ideal, but at least there is a choice.
I second your opinion.
There are many choices but MS Windows makes better use of resouces. I have a dual Pentium Pro machine with overdrive processor (333MHZ) and 512MB of memory. It can barely get out of its own way running Fedora Core 2.
This remark doesn't apply to the kernel but many of the commonly used applications that many people use.
You might want to try XFCE. It has enough features to keep me happy and weighs less. XFCE is available on the Fedora server.
Harry Putnam wrote:
The good news is that FC3t2 installed without any problems on my toshiba 4005CDS (circa 1998). I couldn't get installed using burned isos although the same ones worked on a desktop. However after burning the boot.iso and choosing and ftp install, it all went on down smooth as silk.
This machine has only 96mb of ram and 233 mhz of cpu.. That is not enough for FC3t2 in full gui I don't think. I'm noticing loading the gnome or kde desktop is really a chore. Almost feels like I'll see smoke rising ... it seems to be working so hard.
This machine is a dual booter that has had winxp win2k and win98 installed... now running win2k on the other partition. What is a little disconcerting here is that the win2k and winxp when it was installed showed considerably more pep loading the desktop or the browser and other heavily gui chores.
I'm a long time linux user and am used to linux being faster than the `other' os's. I think we are seeing a sort of bloatation coming on due to peoples desire for heavily gui stuff.
But then again... At least I'm comfortable at the cmdline so probably won't use the linux gui unless I really need it.
Its kind of sad though to see the passing of linux the lean mean fighting machine. Especially when a full featured microsoft product is able to out proform a full featured Fedora on lesser hardware.
Just my observation of course, I have'nt bench tested or done any really scientific comparison, but a huge delay getting logged into X while the desktop takes form is definitely considerably slower than the same process on win2k and winxp on this particular machine.
Starting a terminal ... again a major pause. Browser... even worse.
This machine has only 96mb of ram and 233 mhz of cpu.. That is not enough for FC3t2 in full gui I don't think. I'm noticing loading the gnome or kde desktop is really a chore. Almost feels like I'll see smoke rising ... it seems to be working so hard.
I'd expect that behavour considering your system specs. The release notes say:
CPU Requirements
This section lists the CPU specifications required by Fedora Core 2.90 Test 1.
Note
The following CPU specifications are stated in terms of Intel processors. Other processors (notably, offerings from AMD, Cyrix, and VIA) that are compatible with and equivalent to the following Intel processors may also be used with Fedora Core. o Minimum: Pentium-class
Fedora Core 2.90 Test 1 is optimized for Pentium PRO (and later) CPUs, but also supports Pentium-class CPUs. This approach has been taken because Pentium-class optimizations actually result in reduced performance for non-Pentium-class processors.
o Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better
o Recommended for graphical: 400 MHz Pentium II or better
Memory Requirements
This section lists the memory required to install Fedora Core 2.90 Test 1.
o Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
o Minimum for graphical: 192MB
o Recommended for graphical: 256MB
I'm running Test 2 on a Compaq Armada M700 w/ a 600 Mhz PIII, 256 RAM and performance is OK.
Jon Savage jonathansavage@gmail.com writes:
This machine has only 96mb of ram and 233 mhz of cpu.. That is not enough for FC3t2 in full gui I don't think. I'm noticing loading the gnome or kde desktop is really a chore. Almost feels like I'll see smoke rising ... it seems to be working so hard.
I'd expect that behavour considering your system specs. The release notes say:
CPU Requirements
This section lists the CPU specifications required by Fedora Core 2.90 Test 1.
[...]
Well, as I posted, I wasn't supprised by the phenomena.. and stated my specs were too low. The surprise was in the fact both win2k and winxp can do considerably better on that machine. At least in terms of laoding the gui and running gui tools.
They are also somewhat slow of course... but considerably more peppy than FC3t2.
Harry
Well, as I posted, I wasn't supprised by the phenomena.. and stated my specs were too low. The surprise was in the fact both win2k and winxp can do considerably better on that machine. At least in terms of laoding the gui and running gui tools.
Sorry if I've missed a crucial part of the background to this problem, but...
Check if you're running any daemons or services that are not available on other OSs. I turn off sendmail, cups, anything else I don't use.
Also make sure the other OS is providing the same level of features, so you're comparing like with like. I have an ancient Win95 machine and it runs old apps acceptably, but struggles a bit with modern ones. I stopped dual booting it after I saw how slow FC1 was on it.
-Cam