> As with anything, the less you support, the faster it will be. A typical > RH9 X install with KDE is supporting true type fonts, transparent menus, > APM, greatly enhanced video card support with opengl support, resolution > changes on the fly, i18n support, etc. > > If you really want to know why, take a look at the software you're running > on a linux graphical desktop and compare the current version with the version > from 3-4 years ago. Can I find out all that my os is loading at startup by looking at the init file? I've heard debian, gentoo, slackware use up less memory usually than the commercial distros, how much of this do they use? what does windows 3.1, 95, xp use compared to modern linux? > As for freebsd on the desktop, it's a joke, and even the freebsd zealots > will tell you that. freebsd is a workhorse. I don't think osnews counts as a freebsd zealot and they say: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5821&page=2 "Not all is bad though. On the upside of FreeBSD you will find its speed. On my AthlonXP 1600+ 1.4 GHz, FreeBSD boots in about 16-18 seconds, the same as a lite Slackware or Gentoo, but way faster comparatively on other popular Linuces like Fedora or Mandrake or SuSE. As I have mentioned in the past Slackware was the fastest platform to run X/Gnome/KDE according to my tests, but the crown of DE speed now goes to FreeBSD 5.2. GTK apps are a bit faster than in Slackware overall but applications load significantly faster on FreeBSD." "Faster than Linux on the desktop (at least compared to kernel 2.4.x distros)" _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list