PDA

View Full Version : Linux's GUI slower than windows'....



Nutshell
02-12-2002, 12:12 AM
Hi,

I personally think that the responsiveness of the GUI in Linux is slower than Windows'. IS is because of the way the OS is designed or what?

thnx

Unregistered
02-12-2002, 01:47 AM
I thought I'd give Linux a try its free and all, well, what can I say? Now I know why its free. :(

response.write("Hello World!")

Brian
02-12-2002, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Nutshell
Hi,

I personally think that the responsiveness of the GUI in Linux is slower than Windows'. IS is because of the way the OS is designed or what?

thnx

The word "bullshít" springs to mind.

or maybe that's two words

Nutshell
02-12-2002, 02:51 AM
Well if you disagree you can explain why. When you open a web browser for example, and you try to click somewhere else, say an icon, it waits for a sec or two to actually highlight that icon. But in windows it highlights it instantly. And don't say it's my hardware problem coz my comp's not slow.

Give your comments. But pls don't just put the word "bull****" and thats it.

Unregistered
02-12-2002, 03:28 AM
Your right Nutshell! Linux is crap. None of Linux's browsers are anywhere near as slick as IE. Also, netscape runs better in Windows but that ain't as good as IE, its laggy in a similar whay to most other browsers, but on Linux the lagginess is greater than that of browsers in Windows. And NO, it's nothing to do with my hardware!!

adrianxw
02-12-2002, 03:43 AM
>>> Linux is crap

I think NutShell was commenting on a particular feature of the OS, not the OS in general.

I wonder if we can possibly have a reasoned, well ordered, polite discussion on this topic.

Nutshell
02-12-2002, 05:05 AM
Yes, i believe that there are many good points about Linux, but i just haven't yet found them out. I was just pointing out the the GUI of Linux is a bit laggy and loses a bit responsiveness. I don't blame it that much since Linux was originally written for command line interface. But if it can be improved it'll be much better.

Shade
02-12-2002, 06:18 AM
The Linux GUIs (I only know Gnome and KDE, maybe there are some more which behave different) are slower than windows!

WHY?
because the GUIs are not integrated in the kernel. in windows the kernel provides a GUI

so Linux GUIs can't be that fast that windows GUI is...
Linux wasn't designed for GUIs (imho)

you can't compare Linux and Windows - because windows is an office or home/gaming OS and Linux is primary for Servers!

But the faster the PC is, the lesser is the speed difference between KDE and Windows!

but who uses Linux with a GUI? I prefer command line!

Nutshell
02-12-2002, 06:21 AM
exactly my point.

Govtcheez
02-12-2002, 07:40 AM
> but who uses Linux with a GUI? I prefer command line!

I dunno... I'm sure I would if I used Linux... no reason to overcomplicate things to make yourself look smarter, I think...

> I wonder if we can possibly have a reasoned, well ordered, polite discussion on this topic.

Yeah, right after we have an orderly discussion when someone posts a thread that says "Atheism is the way"

Deckard
02-12-2002, 07:44 AM
It is also my personal experience that the Linux GUI is slower than Windows. Starting the GUI is the worst part, which on my 1.2Ghz (256MB RAM) Linux box takes longer than a cold boot on my Windows 750Mhz (256MB RAM) box. Another disappointing performance area is starting an application in the GUI - Windows is still faster in that area. I am using KDE 2.2.2, which is substantially faster than 2.1.2, so I still have a little hope there will be improvement in the future.

However, I have also noticed that applications running on the Linux GUI, once started, are much more responsive than my applications running on Windows. I admit this may be due to the difference in clock speed of my two boxes. Also, I have to point out that (in my experience) applications running in KDE actually run until I decide to stop them (as opposed to the Window's infamous GPF).

Fortunately for me, most of my time on Linux is spent at the CLI, which is lightning fast ;)

taylorguitarman
02-12-2002, 10:57 AM
What distro are you using? I run Red Hat 7.2 with Gnome and Enlighten as my window manager and things work just fine for me. (1.2G AMD, 650MB RAM) I will agree that I hate Netscape on Linux but Opera works well in my opinion, and StarOffice has a browser that isn't half bad either. Both are much quicker than Netscape from my use.
Perhaps you should try some of the other desktops and window managers and see if performance improves.
I love the flexibility that Linux offers by not including everything in the kernel, rather than getting applications forced on me by Windows.
Oh well, my two cents.

Sorensen
02-12-2002, 11:36 AM
>in windows the kernel provides a GUI

No it doesn't.

Govtcheez
02-12-2002, 11:47 AM
> you can't compare Linux and Windows - because windows is an office or home/gaming OS and Linux is primary for Servers!

If you're comparing Linux to 95/98/ME, you're right... Comparing Linux and 2K is totally valid, though.

Brian
02-12-2002, 11:55 AM
The only reason IE loads quickly is because it's already running.

IE is the windows GUI.

Deckard
02-12-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by taylorguitarman
What distro are you using?I'm a Slackware man, myself. I've been using slack since 3.5. I've also tried Red Hat, but for some reason I prefer Slack ::shrug::

I have used Gnome is the past, and you're right, it doesn't seem to share KDE's sluggishness at start-up. Beats me while I still use KDE, other than the fact that the slow start doesn't really bother me (time enough to refill the coffee cup), and I really like the Konquerer web browser.

gnu-ehacks
02-12-2002, 02:01 PM
Actually, Linux is slower with the uncostumized GUI...Linux was designed with total compatability in mind, so things are suppose to be slower, so that it can support different systems. If you were to customize it a little, probably by recompiling xwindows, it would go faster.

Nutshell
02-13-2002, 02:09 AM
Does the windows kernel really provide a GUI? IF so how? And will it be therefore be bigger than the one in Linux?

Nutshell
02-13-2002, 06:47 AM
One more question, if the GUI of windows is not built-in the kernel, nor with the one in Linux, what is the cause of the difference in responsiveness between the two os'es?

samGwilliam
02-13-2002, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Nutshell
Does the windows kernel really provide a GUI? IF so how? And will it be therefore be bigger than the one in Linux?

Well NT/2000/XP doesn't because it's a microkernel.

Nutshell
02-14-2002, 12:35 AM
Would you mind telling me what's a microkernel?

thnx

ygfperson
02-14-2002, 05:10 PM
...probably by recompiling xwindows...*shudder*... don't remind me.

Troll_King
02-14-2002, 05:39 PM
Nutshell, if you want to know all about Win2k (the leading MS OS) than read 'Inside Microsoft Windows 2000' third edition. On the other hand if you want to know about linux than you are up **** creek.

-KEN-
02-14-2002, 07:26 PM
>>On the other hand if you want to know about linux than you are up **** creek.<<

Right, because it's not like they do something like supply source code with it.

Nutshell
02-15-2002, 02:20 AM
Actually, i really want to learn both os'es. I am using windows xp right now but i hav the red hat linux 7.2 cd. I havn't installed it nor tried it 'yet' because i want to learn the basics of C and C++ programming before i learn the Linux os.

Troll king, what do u learn from the book you recommended me?

Just a curious question: Where do you get the source of Linux ?

thnx

Unregistered
02-15-2002, 02:34 AM
It's not something that you can explain in just a simple post. You need to understand a lot of things, so you need that information communicated to you in a book with diagrams and supporting literature. To ask about the difference between Linux and Windows requires a great deal of knowledge. What you are asking for Nutshell is mostly a lie because that is all you will recieve here unless you take TK's advice and pick up that book. If you want a similar book on Linux than try orielly publishing. They are a good source for *NIX related literature.

Nutshell
02-15-2002, 03:26 AM
Ok, rephrase the question: Where can i learn Linux from other than the internet, an step-by-step guides?

Unregistered
02-15-2002, 04:28 AM
http://www.oreilly.com/

Look in the Linux section.

Govtcheez
02-15-2002, 07:02 AM
Dean, why do you insist on logging out to do your trolling? It was obvious who that was even before I checked the IP.

samGwilliam
02-15-2002, 07:18 PM
A microkernel is where the kernel has been stripped to its bare bones and all non-essential functionality has been relegated to user level processes. Mach and 2000/NT is one, Linux isn't.

klausi
02-16-2002, 12:46 PM
The Unix (so also the Linux) kernel concept is much nicer than the one of a microkernel. There are only five basic operations (read, write, open, close, ulink) everything is based on and a clearly defined filesystem.

klausi

Troll_King
02-16-2002, 04:24 PM
Dean, why do you insist on logging out to do your trolling? It was obvious who that was even before I checked the IP.


Why do you always get so excited over this. Please keep your penis in your pants. I don't have my password written on my forehead.

-KEN-
02-16-2002, 05:18 PM
In case you thought that'd fly dean, you might want to look back and see how you referred to yourself in the 3rd person...I doubt it was as simple as you forgetting your password. You're such a dork.

Sorensen
02-16-2002, 05:21 PM
>Well NT/2000/XP doesn't because it's a microkernel.

Apparently this is not true. Inside Microsoft Windows 2000, Third Edition, by David Solomon -


Although some claim it as such, Windows 2000 isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels, where the principal operating system components (such as the memory manager, process manager, and I/O manager) run as separate processes in their own private address spaces, layered on a primitive set of services the microkernel provides.

and


Windows 2000 is similar to most UNIX systems in that it's a monolithic operating system in the sense that the bulk of the operating system and device driver code shares the same kernel-mode protected memory space.

If it was a true microkernel it'd be more stable :).

Nutshell
02-16-2002, 08:47 PM
If i get you guys right, a in a system that uses microKernel, many processes are run outside the kernel, but i a system that doesn't use microkernel, many processes are done in the kernel.