Re: is Sarge much slower than Woody on old hardware?
On 5/19/05, Nacho <listasdecorreo@lascartasdelavida.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have doubts about upgrading to Sarge (when it's stable) because my PC is
> about 6 years old, and actually with Woody it's not slow, this is the
> hardware:
>
> - CPU AMD K6-2 400 Mhz
> - 224 Mb RAM
> - 180 Gb HD
>
> The problem is that I use it for lots of things:
>
> - Long queries to postgresql which can last between 5 to 30 minutes
> - Web development
> - Multimedia (divx, mp3...)
> - desktop applications: firefox, staroffice, gimp...
> - Execute remote X applications (more firefox, staroffice, gimp...)
> - Several Gb encrypted directories
> - Many more things...
>
> And I'm worried that if I upgrade to Sarge I could feel that it's slower for
> making the same amount of job... what do you think about this?
If it works, why fix it? :D
> Also, I'm using kernel 2.2.26, it supports all the hardware I have so I
> haven't upgraded... could I run Sarge without upgrading my kernel? is really
> an advantage to upgrade kernel in such old hardware as this?
A dist-upgrade would never force you to upgrade to a new kernel.
That being said, the 2.6 kernels do have better support for desktops
that it's got good performance even on older hardware. The bad news is
it does this at the expense of being bigger in size compared to a 2.2
kernel. Yet again, YMMV.
--
Paolo Alexis Falcone
pfalcone@gmail.com
Reply to: