Henry Yen wrote:
Graphical environments running from a Live CD will be very very sensitive
to the amount of RAM in the system. Live CD's will run quite a bit faster
if you give them a healthy dollop of swap space. That said, the sheer
amount of power and features in a modern Linux Live CD over an older
(almost ten years old!) system such as Windows 98 require a larger amount
of RAM. Live CD's tend to throw in everything including the kitchen sink.
Hi,
Your point is well taken. On a faster machine with 1 GB of RAM, Gnome
runs significantly faster. I am also running it from a hard disk
install, having given up on the live CD. I intended to install Debian
on that machine with Gnome anyway. I found the performance to be much
better than XP. For command line only cases, live CDs work fine, but I
agree that my system is far from ideal for a live CD target, thus I'm
still running Win98 here. I intend on upgrading one of these days, once
I get virtual machines set up and the Linux system is tuned the way I want.
On the other hand, the same live CD which ran fast on my low memory
system was even slower to boot than Ubuntu on a faster system with more
memory. Specifically, grml 1.1RC1 took about 30 minutes to boot (I mean
from starting the CD to an actual command prompt) on a Pentium D
processor with 2 GB of RAM and software speech. There was no X
environment or anything graphical. The only thing that would take
memory is ESpeak, which even on my low memory system runs fast. I would
be interested in an explanation of why an apparently superior system
would take such an extremely long time to boot when my old and slow
system takes about 1/3 the time. Both are standard desktop systems.
The faster machine has two cores and I don't remember the exact
processor speed.
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list