Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

gogo · 2012-06-25 17:38:04

Tech knowledge: High
Linux knowledge: Low

I have an old Dell system repurposed for my kid as a "youtube" machine. The problem is the videos are jerky and even Iceweasel takes forever to open.

This is much poorer than the system performed with Win XP SP3 and google chrome. I took all the default options for the install, and I don't believe I did anything that would affect performance.
I tested #! in several virtual machines before I decided on it. It always performed well (with the limited hardware I allowed it). I think it more likely I did something wrong.

Is there a good "system information" tool for #! I can use to get you the complete specs?
Basic Specs:
CPU: P4 2Ghz single core
RAM: 256MB RAMBUS
HDD: 40GB
Graphics: Dedicated AGP card.

I could shift everything around and put the processor in an old emachine. that would give me access to 512MB DDR memory. (Corsair memory complete with heat spreaders big_smile ) I just don't want to do that if the problem is not memory.

What are your recommendations to make this useable?

el_koraco · 2012-06-25 17:41:22

Puppy Linux or Siltaz.

Awebb · 2012-06-25 17:45:45

Tinycore Linux.

gogo · 2012-06-25 17:51:25

Thank you for replying so quickly.

I will look into those three. I have heard of Puppy and Tinycore linux before. I just thought I had enough system to run #! judging by what others have reported.

I'll start looking into them and I will leave this as unresolved in case someone has a bright idea for fixing my current implementation.

Thanks again,
gogo

snowpine · 2012-06-25 17:51:41

Check out the Adobe Flash hardware requirements here: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplay … specs.html

Linux
2.33GHz or faster x86-compatible processor, or Intel Atom 1.6GHz or faster processor for netbooks
Red Hat® Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5.6 or later (32-bit and 64-bit), openSUSE® 11.3 or later (32-bit and 64-bit), Ubuntu 10.04 or later (32-bit and 64-bit)
Mozilla Firefox 4.0 or Google Chrome
512MB of RAM; 128MB of graphics memory

gogo · 2012-06-25 17:57:30

effing flash. I should have know better. That crap is a hog.

How the hell does a 1.6Ghz atom perform better than a 2Ghz P4??? lol, thanks for the info snowpine! Still suprised the same hardware worked for WinXp and performed Better....

Sheez, guess i'm up a crap creek without a paddle. I'll reinstall xp if its going to work better. Would rather not as I consider Linux > XP.

Thanks for the input.

snowpine · 2012-06-25 18:02:20

Windows XP was released in 2001 and has very low hardware requirements compared to 2012 operating systems. smile

pvsage · 2012-06-25 19:55:44

gogo wrote:

How the hell does a 1.6Ghz atom perform better than a 2Ghz P4???

With great difficulty, if at all. Mostly not. (I have to set my netbook to the "performance" governor if I even want halfway-decent Youtube playback; html5 video is a complete no-go.)

I'm afraid that you may indeed be on a river of excrement in a Native American water vessel without any means of propulsion. However, since, as you noted, Flash is supposed to be OK on a 1.6GHz Atom (which performs about the same as a PIII), your P4 may be OK if you swap to the mobo with the 512MB memory.

snowpine · 2012-06-25 20:25:35

I can confirm that Flash playback is poor on my three 1.6ghz Atom computers. Actually it is slightly better on my Pentium 4 (which is 3ghz with 1.5gb RAM).

All 4 of those machines have been retired from everyday use in favor of fast modern hardware.

gogo · 2012-06-25 23:17:10

I have 2 modern systems now. A core 2 duo Dell desktop with 3 gb memory and vista (for the wife). I also have my rig which is currently an AMD Phenom II x2 3.1 ghz unlocked to quad core and overclocked to 3.6 ghz. 8GB ddr3 1600mhz memory, AMD Radeon 5770 with win 7. I'm sure either one o those would rock with #! installed as I have enjoyed it in a vm on the AMD machine. The goal her is to trickle down machines. I am creating a new gaming build for my son, my daughter gets the old p4 as all she needs is a YouTube machine. Just wanted you to know my thought process.

A coworker more familiar with linux than I suggested I try updating the video drivers. He said the agp video card drivers may not be installed by default!

wuxmedia · 2012-06-25 23:33:44

regards drivers it's possible, i've had probs with the older gfx cards. to find out,
type or better - copy/paste into a terminal the following, then post the output here smile

lspci | grep VGA

preferably using your P4 wink

[moan] flash is getting a bit much, on what used to be my top, albeit ancient, system (athlon 2800 XP, 1GB ram) [/moan]

Last edited by wuxmedia (2012-06-25 23:38:09)

gogo · 2012-06-26 00:24:14

Thanks, here it goes:

:~$ lspci | grep VGA
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV11 [GeForce2 MX/MX 400] (rev b2)

drewdle · 2012-06-26 00:35:48

gogo wrote:

Thanks, here it goes:

:~$ lspci | grep VGA
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV11 [GeForce2 MX/MX 400] (rev b2)

I thought I'd throw this out there: My M50 in my signature runs YouTube at standard definition almost-fluidly, with the occasional jerkiness. It's got 800Mhz, 768Mb of memory, and a three generations faster graphics card than your machine, however. There's no reason CrunchBang can't run quickly on 512Mb of memory. It's just a matter of whether your P4 and you graphics card have the muscle for Flash. Installing the proprietary drivers might be a good route.

EDIT: I just remembered something else!

Years ago, used to be into old Mac hardware, and I had a G3 300Mhz tower with an ATI Rage 128 card in it, as well as an iMac G4 with a 700Mhz processor and a GeForce 2. I got YouTube to run on both using the following: http://m.youtube.com/ It launches all it's content as a .3gp file to an external viewer such as VLC (or QuickTime on the old Macs). Quality is shoddy, but it plays well, because the site is meant for old phones. Worth a shot anyway.

Last edited by drewdle (2012-06-26 00:44:09)

gogo · 2012-06-26 00:41:07

drewdle wrote:

Installing the proprietary drivers might be a good route.

I'll see if I can find instructions for this somewhere.

gogo · 2012-06-26 02:40:01

Okay, I need help/direction. I am trying to follow the instructions here: http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … s-drivers/, but that menu item does not exist. (restricted device manager).

Some of the other instructions seem beyond me (and seem like they may not apply): http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … an-stable/.

So mayhaps there is a middle ground?

Sudo apt-get fix-my-problem????

Last edited by gogo (2012-06-26 02:42:15)

pidsley · 2012-06-26 02:48:36

I will give you the same advice I gave another new member. Relax. Take a deep breath. Remember people helping you here are volunteers. There are people here from all parts of the world and some of them may be sleeping now (maybe the exact person who has the answer to your problem). Did you try downloading an iso for puppy or slitaz? The puppy "slacko" iso is only ~130M and slitaz is only ~40M. Try one of those while you are waiting; they're both "live" distros so you don't even have to install them. If those don't help, try searching on just "nvdia" in the search box (top right corner). I found this thread which may or may not help you. Someone will eventually be here to help you, but maybe not as quickly as you'd like.

http://www.puppylinux.com/download/index.html
http://www.slitaz.org/

Last edited by pidsley (2012-06-26 03:42:51)

machinebacon · 2012-06-26 04:26:58

In an nutshell: http://smxi.org/site/install.htm#sgfxi

Run the script outside of X, let it install the driver, restart the computer, run the script again, then switch back to the desktop.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-06-25 17:38:04

Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#2 2012-06-25 17:41:22

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#3 2012-06-25 17:45:45

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#4 2012-06-25 17:51:25

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#5 2012-06-25 17:51:41

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#6 2012-06-25 17:57:30

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#7 2012-06-25 18:02:20

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#8 2012-06-25 19:55:44

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#9 2012-06-25 20:25:35

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#10 2012-06-25 23:17:10

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#11 2012-06-25 23:33:44

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#12 2012-06-26 00:24:14

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#13 2012-06-26 00:35:48

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#14 2012-06-26 00:41:07

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#15 2012-06-26 02:40:01

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#16 2012-06-26 02:48:36

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

#17 2012-06-26 04:26:58

Re: Poor Performance on P4 2Ghz with 256RAM

Board footer