Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Faster Knoppix?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5

    Faster Knoppix?

    Hey..

    ive just got knoppix working on a 233 mhz pc... but now i see that it runs terribly slow (at initializing the KDE.. i keep getting a greyish screen with a Cross as the mouse pointer for about 5 mins.. then it finalyshows it how it should..)

    system specs:
    233 mhz
    8x cdrom speed (its probably that, eh?)
    96 mb ram
    2 harddrives (one 1.99 gb, one 1 gb (which i need to format cause i cant access it.... NTFS.. ))

    Is there maybe a option to run a faster graphical interface?
    if so: how/where etc?

    thanks!

  2. #2
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    colorado springs, colorado
    Posts
    1,933

    Re: Faster Knoppix?

    Quote Originally Posted by Megagun
    Hey..

    ive just got knoppix working on a 233 mhz pc... but now i see that it runs terribly slow (at initializing the KDE.. i keep getting a greyish screen with a Cross as the mouse pointer for about 5 mins.. then it finalyshows it how it should..)

    system specs:
    233 mhz
    8x cdrom speed (its probably that, eh?)
    96 mb ram
    2 harddrives (one 1.99 gb, one 1 gb (which i need to format cause i cant access it.... NTFS.. ))
    You are at the bare minimum requirements for booting into KDE w/ only 96M RAM. It's no suprise that it's slow. I run knoppix from hdd on a 233 w/ 160M- it's pretty nice.

    Is there maybe a option to run a faster graphical interface?
    if so: how/where etc?

    thanks!
    Yep there sure is- check out the cheat codes. (they can also be found by hitting F2 as soon as you get to the boot screen. Perhaps try Fluxbox or Ice

  3. #3
    Member registered user
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    32
    Try knoppix desktop = {fluxbox | icewm}

    I recommend icewm; it looks a lot more "usable"

  4. #4
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    929
    Either more memory (it should be very useable with Kde with 256Mb of Ram) or a "lighter" window manager.

  5. #5
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    101
    It is very useable with Kde with 256Mb of Ram.

    I went to 512MB, a lot better - about 125 MB Free Physical Memory left unused.

    Linux EAT'S Memory!!!

    When I ran it from CD w/256MB Memory - it was Slow, a lot quicker on HDD.

    Gigabyte GA-7DXR w/ AMD XP 1600+ & 512MB MEM [PC266] & 40GB HDD (ATA100)


  6. #6
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    colorado springs, colorado
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCyberDude

    Linux EAT'S Memory!!!
    Not really. Your RAM will usually be full unless you just rebooted. Since calls to hdd are slow, whenever the cpu needs info it first looks to the RAM then the hdd if it isn't found in RAM. If it does access the hdd, it will load what it needs and what ever is stored around it. This happens because it assumes that since you are accessing memory location X00X right now, you will likely need X00X plus or minus 1 shortly so it loads it now to save time in the future. Whatever has been idle in RAM the longest is the first to be removed when more RAM is needed. Most of the used memory is just disk buffer space which shrinks as real code needs more RAM. Of course more RAM is always nice- makes alot of things happen faster but Linux does not eat RAM. Wondoze on the other hand has more memory leaks than the CIA. That's why you can only leave a M$ box running for so long before you have to reboot it.

  7. #7
    Junior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rickenbacherus
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCyberDude

    Linux EAT'S Memory!!!
    Not really. Your RAM will usually be full unless you just rebooted. Since calls to hdd are slow, whenever the cpu needs info it first looks to the RAM then the hdd if it isn't found in RAM. If it does access the hdd, it will load what it needs and what ever is stored around it. This happens because it assumes that since you are accessing memory location X00X right now, you will likely need X00X plus or minus 1 shortly so it loads it now to save time in the future. Whatever has been idle in RAM the longest is the first to be removed when more RAM is needed. Most of the used memory is just disk buffer space which shrinks as real code needs more RAM. Of course more RAM is always nice- makes alot of things happen faster but Linux does not eat RAM. Wondoze on the other hand has more memory leaks than the CIA. That's why you can only leave a M$ box running for so long before you have to reboot it.
    *applause*
    Also, how do you know Linux eats RAM? If you're comparing to the Windows NT/2000/XP Task Manager you're comparing apples and oranges. The Windows Task Manager shows how much RAM is actively in use and displays everything else as "free". If you do a "free -m" in Linux (or use a memory monitoring app) you will likely get the pages cached in RAM as well...which of course makes it look like Linux is eating it all up.

Similar Threads

  1. faster than winxp??
    By 149047 in forum General Support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-27-2005, 03:20 PM
  2. smaller and a little bit faster knoppix 3.7 (experimental)
    By ijuz in forum Customising & Remastering
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 05:02 AM
  3. From what hd partition Knoppix core work faster???
    By alex52 in forum General Support
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-27-2004, 12:41 AM
  4. An idea that *might* make Knoppix run faster (or maybe not)
    By rigurat in forum Customising & Remastering
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-07-2004, 10:30 AM
  5. boot knoppix/linux faster
    By Superstoned in forum Ideas
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 03:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


IBM AC1 7870 BladeCenter Blade Server 2*Xeon X5570 2.93GHz 12GB SEE NOTES picture

IBM AC1 7870 BladeCenter Blade Server 2*Xeon X5570 2.93GHz 12GB SEE NOTES

$11.13



IBM SYSTEM x3650 M4 Xeon E5-2609 2.40GHZ 16GB DDR3-1066MHZ 2x 550W PSU TESTED picture

IBM SYSTEM x3650 M4 Xeon E5-2609 2.40GHZ 16GB DDR3-1066MHZ 2x 550W PSU TESTED

$109.95



IBM Power S822 12-Bay Server System Power8 Core 3.42Ghz DVD-Rom Drive 64GB No HD picture

IBM Power S822 12-Bay Server System Power8 Core 3.42Ghz DVD-Rom Drive 64GB No HD

$399.99



IBM S822LC 8335-GCA Power 8 2U Server 2xPower8 TESTED - Missing one PCIE riser picture

IBM S822LC 8335-GCA Power 8 2U Server 2xPower8 TESTED - Missing one PCIE riser

$495.00



IBM System x3500 m3 Server picture

IBM System x3500 m3 Server

$100.00



IBM System x3650 M4 Dual Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.60GHz 128GB RAM No HDD picture

IBM System x3650 M4 Dual Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.60GHz 128GB RAM No HDD

$124.50



IBM 7944AC1 System x3550 M3 Server 1*Intel Xeon X5650 2.67GHz 4GB SEE NOTES picture

IBM 7944AC1 System x3550 M3 Server 1*Intel Xeon X5650 2.67GHz 4GB SEE NOTES

$26.97



1U IBM x3550 M5 4 Bay SFF SAS3 Server 2x E5-2683 V3 28 Core 128GB DDR4 2x Tray picture

1U IBM x3550 M5 4 Bay SFF SAS3 Server 2x E5-2683 V3 28 Core 128GB DDR4 2x Tray

$318.00



IBM System X3650 Server M2 2 x Xeon X5570 2.93 Ghz w/128 GB/DVDRW picture

IBM System X3650 Server M2 2 x Xeon X5570 2.93 Ghz w/128 GB/DVDRW

$169.99



IBM Lenovo X3650 M5 2U 8x 2.5” CTO Rack Server – 2x HS, 2x 750W picture

IBM Lenovo X3650 M5 2U 8x 2.5” CTO Rack Server – 2x HS, 2x 750W

$199.00