Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Too **** slow

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,974

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    Quote Originally Posted by farcusnz View Post
    e.g. I do a lot of video editing - for this, 2 GB would be considered very low (and probably unusable).
    I do a lot of video editing and graphics work, too, with only 2 GB of memory, 2x Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz.

    I find it to be very usable/productive and no indication it is too low. I also use it for spreadsheets, databases, browsing, photography production,

    ... and posting on this forum.

    I keep thinking I ought to add more memory, since so many people say it is a good thing to do, and memory is quite cheap, these days. But, this machine is nice and snappy, and so there hasn't been enough incentive to run out and get more memory.
    -Gerry Makaro
    Fraser-Bell Info Tech
    Solving Tech Mysteries since the Olden Days!
    ~~
    If I helped you, consider clicking the Star at the bottom left of my post.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    On 2014-04-09 06:36, Fraser Bell wrote:

    > I do a lot of video editing and graphics work, too, with only 2 GB of
    > memory, 2x Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz.
    >
    > I find it to be very usable/productive and no indication it is too low.
    > I also use it for spreadsheets, databases, browsing, photography
    > production,


    Try to open all those at the same time, as I do... ;-)

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,071

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:36:01 +0000, Fraser Bell wrote:

    >> 2 GB /is/ considered low for any modern operating system. That's not
    >> really an opinion - that's generally considered a best practice, unless
    >> you're running specialized apps that just don't require that much
    >> memory.
    >>
    >>

    > I agree with that, 2 GB is "low" or "adequate" for most situations. I
    > just disagree that it is "-*Very Low*-"


    It is "very low" for many situations, and in the end, it all comes down
    to answering this question: What do you want to do with your system?

    It's impossible (otherwise) to recommend a sufficient amount of memory,
    other than to say "more is better" - which is a good general rule, at
    least with 64-bit OSes (with 32bit without PAE, you cap out about about 4
    GB, so more isn't going to help without other changes).

    Jim



    --
    Jim Henderson
    openSUSE Forums Administrator
    Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    20,399
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser_Bell View Post
    I do a lot of video editing and graphics work, too, with only 2 GB of memory, 2x Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz.

    I find it to be very usable/productive and no indication it is too low. I also use it for spreadsheets, databases, browsing, photography production,

    ... and posting on this forum.

    I keep thinking I ought to add more memory, since so many people say it is a good thing to do, and memory is quite cheap, these days. But, this machine is nice and snappy, and so there hasn't been enough incentive to run out and get more memory.
    I don't do video editing, but do a lot of image editing and often use Google Earth in my work on a company laptop running openSUSE 13.1, KDE 4.12.4. Last year, following an upgrade of GE, it became rapidly apparent that 2GB of memory was insufficient (very low) with the severe latency of many visual GE operations meant that it almost became unusable. Upgrading to 4GB has resolved the sluggish performance for graphics-intensive applications. You can argue all you like, but Jim's description would reflect most users experience trying to do similar tasks with 2GB memory with a modern OS environment.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,974

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    Quote Originally Posted by hendersj View Post
    It is "very low" for many situations
    Yes, for many situations, but not for most.

    Quote Originally Posted by hendersj View Post
    in the end, it all comes down
    to answering this question: What do you want to do with your system?
    I agree with this statement completely. No dispute with that at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by hendersj View Post
    It's impossible (otherwise) to recommend a sufficient amount of memory,
    other than to say "more is better" - which is a good general rule, at
    least with 64-bit OSes (with 32bit without PAE, you cap out about about 4
    GB, so more isn't going to help without other changes).
    This is perhaps one of most accurate statements in the entire thread, and -- of course -- more memory is always better. But most common or casual users will find that 2-GB is sufficient, especially those changing their old machines from XP (or Vista) to Linux. Most of those machines cannot address even 4 full GB (it's 3.something, I forget the exact figure at this moment), if the motherboards even have the capacity to expand to 4-GB, which many of those older machines do not.

    So, it would be silly to discourage them by saying that is not enough memory. I do not want to see anyone considering such a move to read through this thread and and not even give it a try, simply because heavier-than-average users and power users say: "2-GB of memory is 'V-E-R-Y-L-O-W'."

    Quote Originally Posted by deano_ferrari View Post
    I don't do video editing, but do a lot of image editing and often use Google Earth in my work on a company laptop running openSUSE 13.1, KDE 4.12.4. Last year, following an upgrade of GE, it became rapidly apparent that 2GB of memory was insufficient (very low) with the severe latency of many visual GE operations meant that it almost became unusable.
    Which gets back to the point I am making: For POWER USERS (which is what you are), I do not disagree that 2-GB is "very low", although, some can get by with it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser_Bell View Post
    I do a lot of video editing and graphics work, too, with only 2 GB of memory, 2x Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz.

    I find it to be very usable/productive and no indication it is too low. I also use it for spreadsheets, databases, browsing, photography production (edited-in note: FYI: That is another term for "image editing"), ...
    But, if I were to take over all the computer operations for NASA, I bet I would want more than 2-GB on my PC. In fact, I might even want to do it with more than one PC, I bet.
    -Gerry Makaro
    Fraser-Bell Info Tech
    Solving Tech Mysteries since the Olden Days!
    ~~
    If I helped you, consider clicking the Star at the bottom left of my post.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    20,399
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    So, it would be silly to discourage them by saying that is not enough memory. I do not want to see anyone considering such a move to read through this thread and and not even give it a try, simply because heavier-than-average users and power users say: "2-GB of memory is 'V-E-R-Y-L-O-W'."
    I don't think the discussion within one thread concerning memory should alone discourage new users from trying out openSUSE. There is a subjective element to this discussion anyway, and it can only be quantified when specific applications and memory usage is reported, and it was during such an analysis that I found that I had to part with ca$h for a memory upgrade.

    Of course, openSUSE 13.1 will install/run fine with a relatively small amount of memory (regardless of desktop environment), but the performance thereafter will obviously depend heavily on the applications used. Other more relevant information can be found about recommended memory with different desktop environments for baseline installs

    http://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/12/1...opensuse-13-1/

    https://en.opensuse.org/Hardware_requirements

    They are no reflection of how it will cope once a user starts to do real work with openSUSE though.

    Which gets back to the point I am making: For POWER USERS (which is what you are), I do not disagree that 2-GB is "very low", although, some can get by with it:
    Of course, and none here would say otherwise.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,974

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    Quote Originally Posted by deano_ferrari View Post
    I don't think the discussion within one thread concerning memory should alone discourage new users from trying out openSUSE. There is a subjective element to this discussion anyway, and it can only be quantified when specific applications and memory usage is reported, and it was during such an analysis that I found that I had to part with ca$h for a memory upgrade.

    Of course, openSUSE 13.1 will install/run fine with a relatively small amount of memory (regardless of desktop environment), but the performance thereafter will obviously depend heavily on the applications used. Other more relevant information can be found about recommended memory with different desktop environments for baseline installs

    http://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/12/1...opensuse-13-1/

    https://en.opensuse.org/Hardware_requirements

    They are no reflection of how it will cope once a user starts to do real work with openSUSE though.


    Of course, and none here would say otherwise.
    I certainly agree with all of what you say here.

    Oh. And in case anyone reading this thread might think that I just want to argue with everything you and Jim have to say, I want to make certain they have no misconceptions:

    I have the deepest respect for hendersj and deano_ferrari, their knowledge and their wisdom, as I do for most of the awesome techs in this forum.
    -Gerry Makaro
    Fraser-Bell Info Tech
    Solving Tech Mysteries since the Olden Days!
    ~~
    If I helped you, consider clicking the Star at the bottom left of my post.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,071

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:06:01 +0000, Fraser Bell wrote:

    > This is perhaps one of most accurate statements in the entire thread,
    > and -- of course -- more memory -*is*- always better. But most
    > -*common*- or -*casual users*- will find that 2-GB is -*sufficient*-,
    > especially those changing their old machines from XP (or Vista) to
    > Linux. Most of those machines cannot address even 4 full GB (it's
    > -3.something-, I forget the exact figure at this moment), if the
    > motherboards even -*have*- the capacity to expand to 4-GB, which many of
    > those older machines do not.
    >
    > So, it would be silly to discourage them by saying that is not enough
    > memory. I do not want to see anyone considering such a move to read
    > through this thread and and not even give it a try, simply because
    > -*heavier-than-average users*- and -*power users*- say: -"2-GB of
    > memory is 'V-E-R-Y-L-O-W'."-


    I think it's fair to say, though, that if a new user doesn't have enough
    memory and has poor performance, they're not going to think well of Linux.

    So it is actually important to have a reasonable minimum requirement. I
    would say 4 GB is a good reasonable minimum. Yes, you might be able to
    work (and work well) with less than that, but the average new user is
    probably going to want more memory than that.

    It's like with SUSE Studio - I have run the appliance in 3 GB of RAM - it
    requires 8. It ran (with some tweaking on my part) and even built and
    tested stuff fine. But it wasn't ideal, and that amount of memory is
    quite low for what that software does.

    I would rather have someone with only 2 GB of RAM feel they need more
    memory not try than have a bad experience because their use case is below
    what is - by modern standards - an insufficient amount of memory.

    A bad experience will drive the user away if they feel they've been
    misled about how much memory they need - and they may never come back.
    Being honest and saying "it might work in 2 GB, but most users find that
    to be very low, and you may suffer performance problems" is more likely
    to cause the user to have a positive impression of the community.

    Jim

    --
    Jim Henderson
    openSUSE Forums Administrator
    Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    1,547

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to stick with the minimum system requirements - and it could also be argued that novice users need ram as much as a power user.
    Take my parents for example.
    I have recently set them up with a new computer (Win7 unfortunately).
    When purchasing I made sure to add extra ram to the configuration (default was 2gb so I upgraded to 8) - the reason was that with their old computer every time I looked at it ram was being used in its entirety at a resting state due to their failure to close applications properly on exit, having a multitude of junk still active in the system tray and junkware that is installed along with other applications.

    Of course this isn't as much of a problem in openSUSE / Linux - but say for example you have a system using 2gb of ram and you leave Skype running 24/7and a couple of other applications ever present in the system tray. All it then takes is for you to start a browser and email client and you can watch the rest of your free ram disappear.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Too **** slow

    On 2014-04-21 05:46, farcusnz wrote:
    >
    > I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to stick with the minimum
    > system requirements - and it could also be argued that novice users need
    > ram as much as a power user.


    On the other hand, saying that you need... dunno, 2, 4, or even 8 GB to
    run openSUSE, will shoo away many XP refugees. People that have old
    computers with XP and that are looking at something else that will run
    on their computers as they are.

    What we can be sure is that, in a modern computer system, the more RAM
    you have, the merriest. For sure. And that the less memory you have, you
    can run fewer applications simultaneously, and that big applications may
    give trouble.

    That's obvious.

    Does openSUSE work with half a gigabyte? Yes, it does. Is it snappy and
    happy? No, of course not, if you try to use things like libreoffice,
    thunderbird and firefox at the same time. It might even crash.

    People with limited RAM should simply have limited expectations, that's all.

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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