Linux vs. Windows98 performance on low-end system

[diogenes571]

It was suprising to find out after much testing that Linux does not offer the same performance on an old machine as a default Windows 98SE installation. Asking for advice on how to best configure Linux for a Pentium 90 with 16MB RAM I was offered several steps:
[*]Recompile the kernel using a reduced configuration that only installs the necessities for that specific machine's hardware
[*]Disable all but the essential services (no httpd, crond, etc.)
[*]Run a minimal window manager such as fvwm2

Trying all of the steps and even more, such as the twm window manager (which is even smaller than fvwm2) and using Opera rather than Netscape, Linux was still painfully slow compared to a default Windows 98SE installation. Windows refreshed so slowly that I could count the seconds (it took two for Opera to refresh). The swapspace was needed even if only running one Opera window in fvwm2 with no other programs, thus slowing things down even further with constant disk access. Win98, on the other hand, could run both IE and AIM without significant slowness or disk access.

Has anyone had better success at running Linux with faster performance than Windows on older hardware? It would be nice if it did, because Linux has a lot of Unixy features that Windows lacks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

With that little ram try not using X. That will speed things up considerably. of course if you want pr0n and need X, recompile the ENTIRE system with optimizations for your hardware. It shouldnt be too hard, just take a day or so

 

[noninterleaved]

<< With that little ram try not using X. That will speed things up considerably. >>



And make it as useless as a toaster.

 

[StuckMojo]

i would point out 2 things:

1) what version of X were you using? X4 is faster i think because it has more hardware optimizations. I don't think anyone would say that linux GUI runs faster than windows. especially if the x server isnt hardware accelerated.

2) the whole benefit of running linux on an old box is that you don't have to run the GUI, yet the machine is still totally usable: pine for mail, links or lynx for www, mpeg123 for mp3s, web serve, mail server, crond, etc. with out X all this things add up to like 9M of ram!!

i know, i just intalled on my old p90 laptop (but it has 72M of ram) and its currently using..13.1M
im going to stick it in my colocation facility as a play box. its worthless as a laptop, but will make a kickass little server

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< With that little ram try not using X. That will speed things up considerably. >>



And make it as useless as a toaster. >>



Bull. I frequently use only cli to do most of my work. irssi for irc, lynx for non pr0n browsing, mutt or pinefor mail.

 

[Elledan]

It is recommended to have at least 32 MB for X. I prefer a minimum of 128 MB.

On a sidenote, a CLI environment isn't so bad actually. It's what I have on this 486 which I use mainly for testing programs and stuff.

 

[diogenes571]

Addressing the issues mentioned:
[*]X is version 4.1 in Slackware 8.0, the distribution I used, but it was completely unusable with my video card as it wrapped the screen. I downloaded the X 3.3.6 version server for S3 cards and it ran fine
[*]My goal was to have at least a minimal GUI for improving such tasks as browsing, and for that matter, making it even possible to use a site like this one (which is unusable in Lynx).
[*]I would agree that a console-based Linux box is usable and useful for certain tasks, but for use with a GUI it is too slow on old hardware.
[*]Porn is not an acceptable application for this or any other system, and is morally reprehensible.

 

[MGMorden]

<<

<<

<< With that little ram try not using X. That will speed things up considerably. >>



And make it as useless as a toaster. >>



Bull. I frequently use only cli to do most of my work. irssi for irc, lynx for non pr0n browsing, mutt or pinefor mail. >>



As much as I love GUI, I've gotta go w/ noc on this one. I've ssh'ed into my machine many times and used it in pure text mode. You'd be surpised what you can get done using only the command line.

EDIT: That SSH trick is also a great way to scare the SH!T out of someone else in your room (I'm in a dorm and have a roommate). The devices on the remote login are still on the physical machine, so just ssh into your machine remotely and play some freaky mp3 from the command line. The machine can still be setting at the login prompt and it'll start playing. Only good for one or two laughs though.

 

[Kadesh]

I used to use nothing but the CLI. So what? I don't get pictures in a web browser. Boo hoo. Screen and virtual consoles make multasking easy (no different than using alt-tab all the time). Heck, I can even watch movies in the CLI with mplayer.

However, if you're going to do nothing but web browsing, go with Windows. NS4 is the only graphical browser that will run decently on an old system and it barely uses CSS.

Anyone know about the memory usage of the framebuffer X server? On an old old system, I don't see much of a gain in "hardware acceleration" but putting the graphics in the kernel might do it.

 

[jhu]

mgmgordon

i did the same thing with my roommate. great for laughs. now that i have a 3rd roommate...

 

[DaHitman]

What you need to do is not INSTALL a SERVER or LARGE HONKING desktop Linux like Redhat or Mandrake... stay away from those... they are WAY TO BIG for you and install much to much stuff you dont need.

Putting Redhat on a 90Mhz Pentium is like trying to run Windows 2000 Data Center with SQL Server, IIS, and Microsoft Exchange running in the background...and wondering why its slow.

There are several linuxes that are specificially configured for small machines to give you as most functionalty in a small system as possible..

Check these out:

VECTORLINUX is a small, fast, Linux based on kernel 2.4.5 choice of 386 or pentium optimizations, XFREE 4.1, and only REQUIRES 250MB of disk space. It includes XFCE, ICEwm, KDE including Koffice, and GNOME with nautilus are available on the CD for installation. Has all the primary needs such as netscape, licq, xchat, gimp, abiword, xmms etc.. THIS IS A GREAT distro... and perfect for what you need. Can download at: http://www.linuxiso.org


PEANUTLINUX With Peanut Linux you only have to download 85 Mb. How's that. The entire system when all the addons are installed is less than 299 Mb! It is recommended for older computers with small capacity. Even with the small size, Peanut Linux comes with networking programs, TCP/IP, Netscape, editors, graphics manipulators, games, 3DFX compatability.
Can download at: http://www.linuxiso.org

Gentoo Linux is a versatile and fast, completely free x86-based Linux distribution geared towards developers and network professionals. Unlike other distros, Gentoo Linux has an advanced package management system called Portage. Portage is a true ports system in the tradition of BSD ports, but is Python-based and sports a number of advanced features including dependencies, fine-grained package management, "fake" (OpenBSD-style) installs, safe unmerging, system profiles, virtual packages, config file management, and more. Download on their site...


Also, run XFCE instead of KDE or GNOME... its got lots of functionalty and its VERY SMALL and FAST.

 

[cureless]

If you want speed, you might want to install QNX or BeOS, they probably run reasonably fast and have a graphical front end.

My ipaq has 16M RAM and runs X ok.

cl

 

[jhu]

it also has a 206mhz strongarm processor

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Addressing the issues mentioned:
[*]X is version 4.1 in Slackware 8.0, the distribution I used, but it was completely unusable with my video card as it wrapped the screen. I downloaded the X 3.3.6 version server for S3 cards and it ran fine
[*]My goal was to have at least a minimal GUI for improving such tasks as browsing, and for that matter, making it even possible to use a site like this one (which is unusable in Lynx). >>



I have used lynx to browse this site, and although it is a pain, it is usable.



<< [*]I would agree that a console-based Linux box is usable and useful for certain tasks, but for use with a GUI it is too slow on old hardware. >>



Agreed, get hardware that supports what you do.



<< [*]Porn is not an acceptable application for this or any other system, and is morally reprehensible. >>



I respect your opinion and if you CANNOT TAKE A JOKE... NM. Whatever.

 

[diogenes571]

[*]In Lynx, I could view messages but was unable to actually submit one



<< Putting Redhat on a 90Mhz Pentium is like trying to run Windows 2000 Data Center with SQL Server, IIS, and Microsoft Exchange running in the background...and wondering why its slow. >>



[*]I didn't even install MySQL, Apache, or sendmail, so this situation is not quite like you suggest. Most of the common Linux services were disabled, and the kernel was recompiled with minimal features.



<< If you want speed, you might want to install QNX or BeOS, they probably run reasonably fast and have a graphical front end. >>



[*]I don't know about QNX, but BeOS has a minimum requirement of 32MB RAM.

Can somebody please tell me more about Peanut Linux and why it would be more suitable than the modifications I did to Slackware? I can't see how Linux can become more optimized than by recompiling the kernel and weeding out all but the essentials.

 

[im2smrt4u]

<<

<<

<<

<< With that little ram try not using X. That will speed things up considerably. >>



And make it as useless as a toaster. >>



Bull. I frequently use only cli to do most of my work. irssi for irc, lynx for non pr0n browsing, mutt or pinefor mail. >>



As much as I love GUI, I've gotta go w/ noc on this one. I've ssh'ed into my machine many times and used it in pure text mode. You'd be surpised what you can get done using only the command line.

EDIT: That SSH trick is also a great way to scare the SH!T out of someone else in your room (I'm in a dorm and have a roommate). The devices on the remote login are still on the physical machine, so just ssh into your machine remotely and play some freaky mp3 from the command line. The machine can still be setting at the login prompt and it'll start playing. Only good for one or two laughs though. >>



EXACTLY!

The command line interface is faster and much more efficient IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING! There is no way I would run X on 16MB of RAM. Hell, I would want to run WIN98SE on 16MB of RAM! Use the CLI and enjoy it or go out and buy more RAM!

BTW, have you actually tried to instal windows on this box!?

im2smrt4u

 

[diogenes571]

[*]No one is debating the speed and efficiency of the command line vs. the GUI--of course the command line is faster.

[*]Yes Win98SE installs fine on this machine and that is what I am using now.

[*]Having since upgraded the memory to 128MB, the performance boost is noticeably higher in Windows than it is in Linux. In both OS's, the disk access problem was eliminated, but the browser refresh still took two seconds in Linux vs. about .5 seconds in Windows. For having a GUI and browsing the web purposes, I much prefer the Windows enviroment on this machine to the Linux. That is not to say I prefer Windows--I much prefer the stability and tools available in Linux over the bloated, unable to access the anything Windows OS.

 

[beatniks3]

have you tried 98lite? I use it on all my low-end computers. It made my weaka$$ compaq deskpro pentium 133 bearable until I got something better...you should give it a try.

 

[diogenes571]

What is 98lite? Is it a mod for Windows or a Linux distro?

 

[beatniks3]

98 lite is a...well here is the site, please read their description of it 98lite homepage. I have always used the free version. I guess the pro version allows you to take out much more...oh and to answer your question, this is a program for windows 98. I think it is ideal for your needs.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< [*]In Lynx, I could view messages but was unable to actually submit one



<< Putting Redhat on a 90Mhz Pentium is like trying to run Windows 2000 Data Center with SQL Server, IIS, and Microsoft Exchange running in the background...and wondering why its slow. >>



[*]I didn't even install MySQL, Apache, or sendmail, so this situation is not quite like you suggest. Most of the common Linux services were disabled, and the kernel was recompiled with minimal features. >>



Did you try recompiling the WHOLE SYSTEM with more optimizations? They distribute that to work on 386's and whatnot. Optimize it for your hardware and you will see a NOTICABLE DIFFERENCE. Especially X.

 

[rahvin]

The problem is that you are probably trying to use a very new distribution with very old hardware. Pick up a copy of Redhat 5.2 and install it. You will find that it runs equivalently to Win98, but the font's won't be anti-aliased and in general it will suck compared to 98. Use linux if you want security or server services, the desktop just isn't there yet, give it another year or two.