Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> High Plains Thumper on Tuesday
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> At home, I use KDE 3.4 with 256 MB of RAM and a 2.2 GHz processor. Works
>>> like a charm.
>>
>> I now have a 2.93 GHz Celeron with 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9500 with 256
>> MB RAM, SoundBlaster Audigy card for Windows XP gaming. Works like a
>> charm. :-)
>>
>> Now it boots up smoothly and quickly.
>>
>> My 1.7 GHz Celeron with 512 MB RAM, nVidia MX440 video with 128 MB RAM,
>> SoundBlaster 16 card took a while for disk to grind before completing
>> boot and login. SuSE 10.1 Open and Debian was quicker.
>>
>> It goes to show the differences in comparison. Symantec Antivirus and
>> personal firewall added to the overhead.
>>
>> Should I give a benchmark comparison between XP and Debian 2.6 kernel
>> on those systems, or would I be violating an EULA with the benchmark?
>> :-)
>
> Take your box to Germany then.
Actually, I was being facetious. :-)
The difference is that in order for XP desktop to run smoothly for
gaming or business applications requires additional resources when
compared to Linux. The 1.7 GHz system was barely adequate for running
Command and Conquer, Zero Hour, which has been out for the past 4 or so
years. It would slow down during intense action, when armies increased
in size. This was in spite of the accelerated nVidia MX440/128 MB
graphics, which helped. This as in spite of all the special graphics
effects disabled (shadows, explosions, texture, etc.) and the lowest
video resolution available in the game.
4 years ago, those who received such systems as stocking stuffers would
be disappointed when using some of the higher end games. Yet it is the
entry level type systems that people buy for such. (Not all have high
tech, licensed trades or manager salaries.)
Both SuSE Open 10.1 and Debian Sarge booted up quicker on the 1.7 GHz.
Thus, it was the preferred system for home use, browsing the Internet,
E-mail, etc.
Zero Hour on the 2.93 GHz system now runs smoothly.
> Just don't bring back any Cuban cigars.
I am less familiar with the political implications of Cuban products.
Perhaps a displeasure to Tony Blair as Allied colaboration with the
incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay? :-)
--
HPT
|
|
