OS advice

OS advice

[Ypo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

Hi

Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:

Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz

(RAM)    4,00 GB


I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.

Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any 
OS suggestion?

Best regards

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 960 bytes --]

Re: OS advice

[Greg Minshall]

Ypo,

> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
> OS suggestion?

it might (*).  if it's not too hard to install linux (i have no idea), you
might figure out some sort of benchmark for your org experience, then
try switching, see what happens.  (there are a lot of variables.)

good luck.  Greg

(*) as a linux enthusiast, and a knee-jerk windows-denier, i want to
*believe* it will; that mostly unfounded belief will be of little help
to you, though.

Re: OS advice

[orzodk]

Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu> writes:

> Ypo,
>
>> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
>> OS suggestion?
>
> it might (*).  if it's not too hard to install linux (i have no idea), you
> might figure out some sort of benchmark for your org experience, then
> try switching, see what happens.  (there are a lot of variables.)
>
> good luck.  Greg
>
> (*) as a linux enthusiast, and a knee-jerk windows-denier, i want to
> *believe* it will; that mostly unfounded belief will be of little help
> to you, though.

I'm in a similar boat, Linux enthusiast, but you're at a point of
frustration where reinstalling an OS is an option then unless you're
looking for an execuse to install Linux you might start by reinstalling
Windows.

If a fresh copy of Windows with years(?) of cruft removed still isn't
suitable then you might do as Greg suggests and try Linux to see if you
prefer that experience. 

Re: OS advice

[Jude DaShiell]

Why not use a linux live disk and take the operating system for a spin
without disrupting any of windows?  The live cd's allow for trial before
installation.



Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in
defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)

.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, orzodk wrote:

> Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu> writes:
>
> > Ypo,
> >
> >> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
> >> OS suggestion?
> >
> > it might (*).  if it's not too hard to install linux (i have no idea), you
> > might figure out some sort of benchmark for your org experience, then
> > try switching, see what happens.  (there are a lot of variables.)
> >
> > good luck.  Greg
> >
> > (*) as a linux enthusiast, and a knee-jerk windows-denier, i want to
> > *believe* it will; that mostly unfounded belief will be of little help
> > to you, though.
>
> I'm in a similar boat, Linux enthusiast, but you're at a point of
> frustration where reinstalling an OS is an option then unless you're
> looking for an execuse to install Linux you might start by reinstalling
> Windows.
>
> If a fresh copy of Windows with years(?) of cruft removed still isn't
> suitable then you might do as Greg suggests and try Linux to see if you
> prefer that experience.
>
>

Re: OS advice

[briangpowell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3621 bytes --]

As always great advice from Jude DaSheill:

In Emacs you can set the auto-save-interval SETQ to whatever you want;
suggest you increase that number of interval of keystrokes required before
an auto-save or maybe just turn off auto-saving altogether--if things start
to slow down

If you do try Linux; and everyone should at one point, realize that in
Linux you can easily create & mount extra "swap partitions" on your hard
drive which can be used in lieu of memory and/or in addition to it, if
indeed as you wondered, there may be a bottleneck of memory usage when you
try to use OrgMode--adding swap space may help--maybe not, I haven't looked
into it recently, don't want to get your hopes up for such a solution

In Linux you can also use exotic things like PVM--Parrallel Virtual
Memory--i.e. use memory from OTHER machines YMMV

In Linux you can also use Emacs OrgMode and/or VLFMode i.e. "Very Large
File Mode" and/or use FUSE to meld directory trees together with remote
machines & then edit with your best machine, the machine with the largest
RAM--with VLFMode in Emacs you can edit files of ANY size (since it only
puts in part of the file at a time)--or you could try VLFMode in the first
place; please tell me the results if you try that--does it speed up things
for you? Does it solve your problem?

Strongly suggest splitting up large OrgMode files when things slow down
and/or just putting a link to those other files that you may want to use
when in your main OrgMode file by using the file protocol:

[[file:~/my-OrgMode-file2][File2]] [[file:~/my-OrgMode-file3][File3]] ...

Other than that, I'd suggest trying to use CygWin on Windows first if you
haven't used CygWin yet, CygWin comes with XWindows & many other things
related to Linux that you may be familiar with can be used too--CygWin was
donated to the Free Software Communities from Red Hat--many thanks Red Hat!

What do Kill Gates' Micro$loth WindBlows users use now to run Emacs &
OrgMode?--y'all use CygWin right?

Installing CygWin on Windows is quick and easy & then so is installing
Emacs and/or OrgMode after that

On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 6:19 PM Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> wrote:

> Why not use a linux live disk and take the operating system for a spin
> without disrupting any of windows?  The live cd's allow for trial before
> installation.
>
>
>
> Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in
> defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
>
> .
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, orzodk wrote:
>
> > Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Ypo,
> > >
> > >> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
> > >> OS suggestion?
> > >
> > > it might (*).  if it's not too hard to install linux (i have no idea),
> you
> > > might figure out some sort of benchmark for your org experience, then
> > > try switching, see what happens.  (there are a lot of variables.)
> > >
> > > good luck.  Greg
> > >
> > > (*) as a linux enthusiast, and a knee-jerk windows-denier, i want to
> > > *believe* it will; that mostly unfounded belief will be of little help
> > > to you, though.
> >
> > I'm in a similar boat, Linux enthusiast, but you're at a point of
> > frustration where reinstalling an OS is an option then unless you're
> > looking for an execuse to install Linux you might start by reinstalling
> > Windows.
> >
> > If a fresh copy of Windows with years(?) of cruft removed still isn't
> > suitable then you might do as Greg suggests and try Linux to see if you
> > prefer that experience.
> >
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4585 bytes --]

Re: OS advice

[Tim Cross]

Ypo <ypuntot@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi
>
> Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC: 
>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
>
> (RAM)    4,00 GB
>
> I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode. 
>
> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any OS suggestion?
>

Sadly, the answer is likely "that depends". There are just too many
unknown variables to provide a definitive answer. However, what I can
tell you is

- I have frequently taken hardware which users have found old and slow
  when running Windows and given it a new life running Linux. Linux can
  certainly perform better with less resources given some caveats. 

- Unlike Windows, Linux comes with a wide variety of destkop
  environments and window managers. Some are resource hungry and others
  are extremely light-weight. Selecting the right window manager will be
  crucial. For older and slower machines with only a small amount of
  memory, I would consider window managers like XFCE or maybe MATE. 

- From the specs you provide, my guess is that memory is your main
  bottle neck. This would further suggest that if you were to switch to
  Linux, avoid memory hungry desktop environments like Gnome or
  KDE. AGain, XFCE is small and fast and very reliable. It lacks the
  visual candy of other environments, but given your specs, something
  needs to be given up and visual candy seems a good starting
  point. However, this change will likely require some adjustment on
  your part. While there is little you cannot do on a Linux system, the
  level of integration and automation 'out of the box' is likely to be
  less. You will certainly be able to create an environment which is
  just as efficient and convenient as Windows, but it will likely take
  additional effort and willingness to adapt on your part. 

- Emacs and org mode can also be memory hungry. It is possible (likely
  in fact) that you could get much better performance, even under
  windows, by modifying how you use org mode. Things I would recommend
  include

    - Keep your org files as small as possible. Use multiple files
      rather than one big file.
    - Don't load any Emacs packages you don't actually use. Don't
      load/install any org packages you don't actually use/need.


A common error I see people make now that we have convenient emacs/elisp
packages is to install lots of packages. When I've been helping people
with Emacs performance, the first thing we do is go through all the
things they have installed/configured. Frequently, there are lots of
things installed which they never use.

What I sometimes recommend is that they comment out as much of their
Emacs and org configuration as possible and then use the system for a
few days. During this time, only enable something once you find you need
it. It is often surprising to them how much stuff they had configured or
installed which they really never used. The other benefit is that
smaller and simpler setups are less likely to have undesired side
effects or interactions with other packages, leading to fewer problems
and increased stability.

At the end of the day, a system with only 4Gb of memory is on the tight
side for a modern setup. I would argue the minimum size these days is
more like 8Gb and a 'good' setup is at least 12Gb. I personally have a
minimum of 16Gb and prefer 32Gb, but I also use a lot of VMs and other
container techniques to manage multiple stable and unrelated development
environments. On the other hand, my wife and children use small systems
running Linux XFCE with only 4Gb and find them quite adequate for what
they do (mainly email, surfing the web, basic office documents with
libre office etc). These systems are things like asus notebooks, small
form factor, slower CPU and 4Gb memory. They find them quite adequate
and appreciate the small form factor, but they also don't spend 8 hours
a day on them!

Re: OS advice

[Jude DaShiell]

i3 may be a good candidate desktop since it's supposed to be light on
resource useage.



Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in
defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)

.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023, Tim Cross wrote:

>
> Ypo <ypuntot@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:
> >
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
> >
> > (RAM)    4,00 GB
> >
> > I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.
> >
> > Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any OS suggestion?
> >
>
> Sadly, the answer is likely "that depends". There are just too many
> unknown variables to provide a definitive answer. However, what I can
> tell you is
>
> - I have frequently taken hardware which users have found old and slow
>   when running Windows and given it a new life running Linux. Linux can
>   certainly perform better with less resources given some caveats.
>
> - Unlike Windows, Linux comes with a wide variety of destkop
>   environments and window managers. Some are resource hungry and others
>   are extremely light-weight. Selecting the right window manager will be
>   crucial. For older and slower machines with only a small amount of
>   memory, I would consider window managers like XFCE or maybe MATE.
>
> - From the specs you provide, my guess is that memory is your main
>   bottle neck. This would further suggest that if you were to switch to
>   Linux, avoid memory hungry desktop environments like Gnome or
>   KDE. AGain, XFCE is small and fast and very reliable. It lacks the
>   visual candy of other environments, but given your specs, something
>   needs to be given up and visual candy seems a good starting
>   point. However, this change will likely require some adjustment on
>   your part. While there is little you cannot do on a Linux system, the
>   level of integration and automation 'out of the box' is likely to be
>   less. You will certainly be able to create an environment which is
>   just as efficient and convenient as Windows, but it will likely take
>   additional effort and willingness to adapt on your part.
>
> - Emacs and org mode can also be memory hungry. It is possible (likely
>   in fact) that you could get much better performance, even under
>   windows, by modifying how you use org mode. Things I would recommend
>   include
>
>     - Keep your org files as small as possible. Use multiple files
>       rather than one big file.
>     - Don't load any Emacs packages you don't actually use. Don't
>       load/install any org packages you don't actually use/need.
>
>
> A common error I see people make now that we have convenient emacs/elisp
> packages is to install lots of packages. When I've been helping people
> with Emacs performance, the first thing we do is go through all the
> things they have installed/configured. Frequently, there are lots of
> things installed which they never use.
>
> What I sometimes recommend is that they comment out as much of their
> Emacs and org configuration as possible and then use the system for a
> few days. During this time, only enable something once you find you need
> it. It is often surprising to them how much stuff they had configured or
> installed which they really never used. The other benefit is that
> smaller and simpler setups are less likely to have undesired side
> effects or interactions with other packages, leading to fewer problems
> and increased stability.
>
> At the end of the day, a system with only 4Gb of memory is on the tight
> side for a modern setup. I would argue the minimum size these days is
> more like 8Gb and a 'good' setup is at least 12Gb. I personally have a
> minimum of 16Gb and prefer 32Gb, but I also use a lot of VMs and other
> container techniques to manage multiple stable and unrelated development
> environments. On the other hand, my wife and children use small systems
> running Linux XFCE with only 4Gb and find them quite adequate for what
> they do (mainly email, surfing the web, basic office documents with
> libre office etc). These systems are things like asus notebooks, small
> form factor, slower CPU and 4Gb memory. They find them quite adequate
> and appreciate the small form factor, but they also don't spend 8 hours
> a day on them!
>
>

Re: OS advice

[Ihor Radchenko]

Ypo <ypuntot@gmail.com> writes:

> Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:
>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
>
> (RAM)    4,00 GB
>
>
> I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.
>
> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any 
> OS suggestion?

AFAIK, 4Gb is barely enough for Windows 10. If I remember correctly, 4Gb
is the minimal hardware requirement for Windows 10, and it will use
almost the whole RAM in such scenario.

So, using things like Chromium or Emacs will likely exceed your RAM
capacity and put system into using SWAP.

You can downgrade to Windows 7, which just requires 2Gb, or you can use
Linux indeed. For example, my current Gentoo setup with Awesome WM +
Browser + Emacs + Syncthing + RSSHub + davmail running only takes 2.7Gb
RAM with bare system (no extra docker services, Emacs, and browser) only
taking 150Mb.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>

Re: OS advice

[Ypo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]

Thanks you all.

I think it is a good idea to try a live-cd. Maybe gentoo¿?

I have been looking to some light OS and Triskel mini looks like quite 
attractive, I tried it many years ago. That will be my second option.

Thanks :-)

El 07/01/2023 a las 13:32, Ihor Radchenko escribió:
> Ypo<ypuntot@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:
>>
>> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
>>
>> (RAM)    4,00 GB
>>
>>
>> I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.
>>
>> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
>> OS suggestion?
> AFAIK, 4Gb is barely enough for Windows 10. If I remember correctly, 4Gb
> is the minimal hardware requirement for Windows 10, and it will use
> almost the whole RAM in such scenario.
>
> So, using things like Chromium or Emacs will likely exceed your RAM
> capacity and put system into using SWAP.
>
> You can downgrade to Windows 7, which just requires 2Gb, or you can use
> Linux indeed. For example, my current Gentoo setup with Awesome WM +
> Browser + Emacs + Syncthing + RSSHub + davmail running only takes 2.7Gb
> RAM with bare system (no extra docker services, Emacs, and browser) only
> taking 150Mb.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2039 bytes --]

Re: Re: OS advice

[Thomas Paulsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3400 bytes --]

Re: OS advice

[Juan Manuel Macías]

Ypo writes:

> Hi
>
> Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC: 
>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
>
> (RAM)    4,00 GB
>
> I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode. 
>
> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
> OS suggestion?

I've read somewhere that Emacs performance on windows tends to be slow,
but I can't assure you because the last windows I suffered was W98, and
at that time I didn't even use Emacs. According to the official GNU
Emacs website:

#+begin_quote

The reason for GNU Emacs's existence is to provide a powerful editor for
the GNU operating system. Versions of GNU, such as GNU/Linux, are the
primary platforms for Emacs development.

However, GNU Emacs includes support for some other systems that
volunteers choose to support.

[...]

#+end_quote

I don't know what specific performance problems you have with Emacs
under Windows, but you can post them on the Emacs-devel mailing list to
help improve Emacs performance on windows.

However, if you are not tied to windows for work reasons or for a
specific application, my recommendation is that you migrate to
GNU/Linux. But I also recommend that you try to avoid falling into the
clutches of distro hopping, at least to begin with :-). In general, any
of the popular distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) is a good choice.
Even if you want the latest of the latest software, EndeavourOS is an
excellent derivative of Arch Linux (much better than Manjaro) with a
very simple graphical installer. Arch itself also has a graphical
installer, if you want to install it, but I would start with Endeavour.
In Linux you also have the possibility of installing light desktop
environments or window managers, which run well with the specifications
of your PC. Lxde and Lxqt are good options, they have openbox as a
window manager, which is robust and highly configurable. But if you
don't want to complicate your life, xfce is a good option. Or Plasma,
which despite being very attractive, I remember that it did not consume
too many resources. And later, if you want to come in the world of
tiling-style window managers, you have a vast territory to explore. I
was very comfortable with BSPWM for a long time, until I migrated to
EXWM (Emacs X Window Manager), which is what I've been using now for a
few years.

Best regards,

Juan Manuel 

Re: OS advice

[Jude DaShiell]

To run windows 10 well, I wouldn't do it with anything less than 6gb and
even then a screen reader eats 50% of the throughput.  It doesn't matter
how much memory a machine has once a screen reader runs on it 50% of the
throughput is sacrificed immediately.  That was found out working
accessibility for the navy.



Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in
defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)

.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023, Juan Manuel Mac?as wrote:

> Ypo writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:
> >
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
> >
> > (RAM)    4,00 GB
> >
> > I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.
> >
> > Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
> > OS suggestion?
>
> I've read somewhere that Emacs performance on windows tends to be slow,
> but I can't assure you because the last windows I suffered was W98, and
> at that time I didn't even use Emacs. According to the official GNU
> Emacs website:
>
> #+begin_quote
>
> The reason for GNU Emacs's existence is to provide a powerful editor for
> the GNU operating system. Versions of GNU, such as GNU/Linux, are the
> primary platforms for Emacs development.
>
> However, GNU Emacs includes support for some other systems that
> volunteers choose to support.
>
> [...]
>
> #+end_quote
>
> I don't know what specific performance problems you have with Emacs
> under Windows, but you can post them on the Emacs-devel mailing list to
> help improve Emacs performance on windows.
>
> However, if you are not tied to windows for work reasons or for a
> specific application, my recommendation is that you migrate to
> GNU/Linux. But I also recommend that you try to avoid falling into the
> clutches of distro hopping, at least to begin with :-). In general, any
> of the popular distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) is a good choice.
> Even if you want the latest of the latest software, EndeavourOS is an
> excellent derivative of Arch Linux (much better than Manjaro) with a
> very simple graphical installer. Arch itself also has a graphical
> installer, if you want to install it, but I would start with Endeavour.
> In Linux you also have the possibility of installing light desktop
> environments or window managers, which run well with the specifications
> of your PC. Lxde and Lxqt are good options, they have openbox as a
> window manager, which is robust and highly configurable. But if you
> don't want to complicate your life, xfce is a good option. Or Plasma,
> which despite being very attractive, I remember that it did not consume
> too many resources. And later, if you want to come in the world of
> tiling-style window managers, you have a vast territory to explore. I
> was very comfortable with BSPWM for a long time, until I migrated to
> EXWM (Emacs X Window Manager), which is what I've been using now for a
> few years.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Juan Manuel
>
>

Re: OS advice

[Ypo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2565 bytes --]

Wow! Thanks Juan Manuel!

El 07/01/2023 a las 23:22, Juan Manuel Macías escribió:
> Ypo writes:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Orgmode is sometimes desperately slow on my PC:
>>
>> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz, 3100 Mhz
>>
>> (RAM)    4,00 GB
>>
>> I am running Windows 10, everything I use works OK, but Orgmode.
>>
>> Do you think that if I install a Linux OS, Orgmode would run fast? Any
>> OS suggestion?
> I've read somewhere that Emacs performance on windows tends to be slow,
> but I can't assure you because the last windows I suffered was W98, and
> at that time I didn't even use Emacs. According to the official GNU
> Emacs website:
>
> #+begin_quote
>
> The reason for GNU Emacs's existence is to provide a powerful editor for
> the GNU operating system. Versions of GNU, such as GNU/Linux, are the
> primary platforms for Emacs development.
>
> However, GNU Emacs includes support for some other systems that
> volunteers choose to support.
>
> [...]
>
> #+end_quote
>
> I don't know what specific performance problems you have with Emacs
> under Windows, but you can post them on the Emacs-devel mailing list to
> help improve Emacs performance on windows.
>
> However, if you are not tied to windows for work reasons or for a
> specific application, my recommendation is that you migrate to
> GNU/Linux. But I also recommend that you try to avoid falling into the
> clutches of distro hopping, at least to begin with :-). In general, any
> of the popular distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) is a good choice.
> Even if you want the latest of the latest software, EndeavourOS is an
> excellent derivative of Arch Linux (much better than Manjaro) with a
> very simple graphical installer. Arch itself also has a graphical
> installer, if you want to install it, but I would start with Endeavour.
> In Linux you also have the possibility of installing light desktop
> environments or window managers, which run well with the specifications
> of your PC. Lxde and Lxqt are good options, they have openbox as a
> window manager, which is robust and highly configurable. But if you
> don't want to complicate your life, xfce is a good option. Or Plasma,
> which despite being very attractive, I remember that it did not consume
> too many resources. And later, if you want to come in the world of
> tiling-style window managers, you have a vast territory to explore. I
> was very comfortable with BSPWM for a long time, until I migrated to
> EXWM (Emacs X Window Manager), which is what I've been using now for a
> few years.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Juan Manuel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3055 bytes --]