From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5d375e920704010739t1b2823b1g797cddaebf58af6d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:39:32 +0200 From: Uriel To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] slow performance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <01a4d4d69dbd885f76a3a9d1699cf835@coraid.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3aad8a3a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 That sounds like a video driver issue, depends on what card and what driver you are using. For me rio on ancient hardware is much faster than any X window manager on modern hardware. I have not been able to tell any difference on how fast rio is since it was first released almost a decade ago, all GUI operations have always been instantaneous, you can't get much faster than that. If you find Plan 9 slow for anything, even on ten years old hardware, then there is clearly something wrong with your setup, either you HD is not doing DMA, you are using VESA and your card doesn't like it, or something like that. uriel - who runs a 600Mhz CPU server and an even slower thinkpad terminal and still can compile kernels in seconds. On 4/1/07, pedro henrique antunes de oliveira wrote: > Sorry, but what do you mean with "test setup" ? > > > Making use of that topic. Actions like making new windows, `cat` something, > `ls` something, well, draw things on the screen (when i start rio, windows > opens and so on). that all actions are slower than here in Other O.S. (i > think that there isnt problem to say what is it, maybe it can help. > Slackware 10.1). > > > Well, i want to make it clear that i'm not comparing 2 O.S. and saying that > one is better of something like that, i'm using only a reference to say > "well, i'm getting slow performance here, what's wrong?". >