Very Computer

by **Eric Sullend** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:21:01

Let me start off by saying I'm brand new at all of this stuff so
forgive me if my questions or descriptions make no sense.

I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM,
1GB HD. I followed the basic FreeBSD install (with the auto option
for disk partitioning) and was able to run FreeBSD and eventually
figured out how to configure "x" to start KDE by default. So I'm
pretty proud of myself, I've got this nice FreeBSD/KDE system up and
running on my previously worthless (win95) computer.

The only problem is that it KDE runs very slow. The HD churns and
churns when I do something as simple as moving a window. It eventually
gets there, but everything takes forever... to the point where it's
unusable. I'm not sure if this is because:

-- my system just doesn't have what it takes (doesn't seem like this
is the problem from what I've read)

-- if I didn't set something up correctly ( I don't know the size of
the swap partition, or if it even exists, or if this makes a
difference at all... anyone know how I find this out?) I think I have
my video card set up correctly (Matrox Millenium 2MB).

-- I'm not even sure this is a KDE problem vs. a FreeBSD problem.

So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what
I can do to try to fix it please let me know.

Thanks!

by **ne..** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:33:08

Quote:>Let me start off by saying I'm brand new at all of this stuff so
>forgive me if my questions or descriptions make no sense.

>I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM,
>1GB HD. I followed the basic FreeBSD install (with the auto option
>for disk partitioning) and was able to run FreeBSD and eventually
>figured out how to configure "x" to start KDE by default. So I'm
>pretty proud of myself, I've got this nice FreeBSD/KDE system up and
>running on my previously worthless (win95) computer.

>The only problem is that it KDE runs very slow. The HD churns and
>churns when I do something as simple as moving a window. It eventually
>gets there, but everything takes forever... to the point where it's
>unusable. I'm not sure if this is because:

>-- my system just doesn't have what it takes (doesn't seem like this
>is the problem from what I've read)

Bingo! You now know the source of your problems..

Quote:
>-- if I didn't set something up correctly ( I don't know the size of
>the swap partition, or if it even exists, or if this makes a
>difference at all... anyone know how I find this out?) I think I have
>my video card set up correctly (Matrox Millenium 2MB).

That's fine.

Quote:>-- I'm not even sure this is a KDE problem vs. a FreeBSD problem.

None of the above.

Quote:>So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what
>I can do to try to fix it please let me know.

Get more ram, quickly, before the prices start going up.

--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
self-reference n.

See self-reference.

1:30pm up 7:28, 5 users, load average: 0.26, 0.24, 0.18

by **MStrongM** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 04:29:18

hey I'll try this one ... All those simple devices you have keyboard, graphics
and mouse need to be configured properly.

Sometimes it's the keyboard has 105 keys and it was configured for 102. And the
refresh rate of your monitor is very important to not blowing it up. And some
people say AUTO is the best setting for mouses.

---------
I'm mister but don't call me this anymore. Are cans better than fresh?

by **MStrongM** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:01:54

There is another small thing about graphic apature (half your
installed memory or 128M "good"). Your board sounds old. It's
nice to have a DMA Channel HD.

>Subject: Re: New User, New Install, Ridiculously Slow

>Date: 8/16/2001 1:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time

com>

>hey I'll try this one ... All those simple devices you have

keyboard,graphics and mouse need to be configured properly.

Quote:
>Sometimes it's the keyboard has 105 keys and it was

configured for 102. And the refresh rate of your monitor is
very important to not blowing it up. And some
people say AUTO is the best setting for mouses.

Quote:
>---------
>I'm mister but don't call me this anymore. Are cans better than
fresh?

---------
I'm mister but don't call me this anymore. Are cans better than fresh?

by **Rainer Krienk** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:52:18

> Let me start off by saying I'm brand new at all of this stuff so
> forgive me if my questions or descriptions make no sense.

> I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM,
> 1GB HD. I followed the basic FreeBSD install (with the auto option
> for disk partitioning) and was able to run FreeBSD and eventually
> figured out how to configure "x" to start KDE by default. So I'm
> pretty proud of myself, I've got this nice FreeBSD/KDE system up and
> running on my previously worthless (win95) computer.

> The only problem is that it KDE runs very slow. The HD churns and
> churns when I do something as simple as moving a window. It eventually
> gets there, but everything takes forever... to the point where it's
> unusable. I'm not sure if this is because:

> -- my system just doesn't have what it takes (doesn't seem like this
> is the problem from what I've read)

> -- if I didn't set something up correctly ( I don't know the size of
> the swap partition, or if it even exists, or if this makes a
> difference at all... anyone know how I find this out?) I think I have
> my video card set up correctly (Matrox Millenium 2MB).

> -- I'm not even sure this is a KDE problem vs. a FreeBSD problem.

> So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what
> I can do to try to fix it please let me know.

KDE2 needs more memory like KDE1 did. So plug in more memory into your host
which probably spends most of its time in swapping. Thats why everything is
that slow for you.

Rainer
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Universitaet Koblenz, http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~krienke
Rechenzentrum, Voice: +49 261 287 - 1312
Rheinau 1, 56075 Koblenz, Germany Fax: +49 261 287 - 1001312
---------------------------------------------------------------------

by **mic..** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:01:41

> Let me start off by saying I'm brand new at all of this stuff so
> forgive me if my questions or descriptions make no sense.
> I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM,
> 1GB HD. I followed the basic FreeBSD install (with the auto option
> for disk partitioning) and was able to run FreeBSD and eventually
> figured out how to configure "x" to start KDE by default. So I'm
> pretty proud of myself, I've got this nice FreeBSD/KDE system up and
> running on my previously worthless (win95) computer.
> -- I'm not even sure this is a KDE problem vs. a FreeBSD problem.
> So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what
> I can do to try to fix it please let me know.

You for sure cannot run KDE2 on a machine with 16MB ram. I have a 256MB
machine and KDE2 consumes half of it just by itself. With 16 MB
you are limited to the simplest window managers like fvwm.

> Thanks!

--
Michel Talon

by **Oliver Immic** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:55:09

>> I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM, 1GB HD.
>> So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what I can do to try to
>> fix it please let me know.
> You for sure cannot run KDE2 on a machine with 16MB ram. I have a 256MB machine and KDE2
> consumes half of it just by itself.

Sorry, please learn to read process tables. KDE2 takes about 45 to 50 MB RAM without any
application launched, which should not make any huge difference either, since KDE is heavily relying on
linked libraries.

Cheers,

Oliver

>> Thanks!

--

----------------------------

----------------------------

by **Rasput** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:13:38

In the last exciting episode of comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,

>>> I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM, 1GB HD.

>>> So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what I can do to try to
>>> fix it please let me know.
>> You for sure cannot run KDE2 on a machine with 16MB ram. I have a 256MB machine and KDE2
>> consumes half of it just by itself.

> Sorry, please learn to read process tables. KDE2 takes about 45 to 50 MB RAM without any
> application launched, which should not make any huge difference either, since KDE is heavily relying on
> linked libraries.

The rest isd probably your graphics card's RAM.

--
You will think of something funnier than this to add to the fortunes.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ::

by **Bill Vermilli** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:57:51

>I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM,
>1GB HD.

I've never run anything graphically intensive with that little RAM
and had any luck at all.

Quote:>-- my system just doesn't have what it takes (doesn't seem like this
>is the problem from what I've read)

Probably. Others suggest not enough RAM. Run 'top' and see if you
are into swap, and I'll bet you are. Another thing to watch out
for if you run something like Netscape is that it take a lot of
memory and appears to leak like a sieve. It will slowly take over
your entire system if you don't exit it and restart it, and
sometimes it takes a restart of your X session [ctrl-alt-backspace]
to get things back to life.

Bill
--

by **mic..** » Mon, 20 Aug 2001 06:36:19

>>> I recently installed FreeBSD and KDE2 on my Pentium 133 MHz, 16MB RAM, 1GB HD.
>>> So if anyone has any ideas on why everything happens so slow and what I can do to try to
>>> fix it please let me know.
>> You for sure cannot run KDE2 on a machine with 16MB ram. I have a 256MB machine and KDE2
>> consumes half of it just by itself.
> Sorry, please learn to read process tables. KDE2 takes about 45 to 50 MB RAM without any
> application launched, which should not make any huge difference either, since KDE is heavily relying on
> linked libraries.

Please try to avoid flaming people who know as well as you the meaning of
top or ps display. When you fire up kde2 it fires many processes. You have
to add the memory consumption of each of them, and the list is as long as
Don Juan list of conquests. But i have observed, on some version of kde2 that
just after having rebooted and fired kde2 - not a lot of other things running -
i had only 100 Megs free over my 256. To be honest, this memory consumption
diminished on a more recent version, but certainly not to 45 Megs, which is
more or less what kde1 eats on my laptop. In any case, on my machine, which is
rather powerful (Athlon 1.2 Ghz, 256 Megs memory) i consider that Kde2 eats
too much memory, is slow, buggy. Frequently the whole things blows out, i
no more use Konqueror since it has destroyed the window manager several times.
Not to mention things that runaway and fill .xsession-errors until the
filesystem is full. Since years i have rarely seen such beta quality software
(except StarOffice which is in par for bloat and bugginess) and it is pure
inertia if i have not replaced it on my machine. So saying that it is stupid
to run kde2 on a 16 Megs machine is plainly justified.

> Cheers,
> Oliver

>>> Thanks!

> --
> ----------------------------

> ----------------------------

--
Michel Talon

by **Eric Jacobon** » Mon, 20 Aug 2001 20:25:43

michel> So saying that it is stupid to run kde2 on a 16 Megs machine
michel> is plainly justified.

That seems honest as is rather painful to even run X in 16Mb RAM...

BTW, for those who, like me, do appreciate CDE-like environments, you
may consider using XFce, which is far smaller than diplodocus like
Gnome or KDE.

--
ric Jacoboni, n il y a 1301664112 secondes