Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 06:40, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > 
> > Might just be the best an older drive can do.  I'd guess that
> 
> Eh? This system is just over one year old. Is that what you
> mean by "older drive"?

Maybe it's an 'older design'.  Since drive prices have dropped
so much I've generally gotten the 7200 RPM versions with
at least 8M cache on board and think of the speed boost as
a 'new vs. old' difference when it really isn't.

> OTOH, with memory unloaded, it took 24 secs to load. After
> exiting, it then took 8 sec to load. So it is the disc.

But, unless you boot frequently, adding enough ram to
cache most of the stuff you use (or weeding out what
you don't need, but Gnome is a big part of the problem)
so you page active memory out will take care of the
problem.   Your X usage seemed unusual too but I'm not
much of an expert in that department.  Is this an
on-board chip that steals system RAM?  X can also consume
a lot of CPU if the video chip doesn't do at least the
2D acceleration operations itself (block moves, etc.).

--- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com