I Thought Mint Cinnamon 21.1 was Slow.

[bob466]

On another Thread I was saying to Tuxbot that Cinnamon 21.1 was slower than Cinnamon 19.1...wasn't a great about 10 seconds at boot.

On my spare SSD I did a clean install of Linux Lite 6.4 the latest version which is nearly as large 2.3GB as Mint 2.6GB...being a light weight Distro you would think it was to Boot faster but that's not the case...it's not much but used space on the Linux Lite SSD is only 5% so it's not full of processes starting up at Boot. Used space on my Mint SSD is 40%.

Mint Cinnamon 21.1
bob@bob-B85M-D3H:~$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 4.468s (kernel) + 11.573s (userspace) = 16.042s
graphical.target reached after 11.567s in userspace
bob@bob-B85M-D3H:~$


Linux Lite
bob  ~  127  systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 4.511s (kernel) + 19.869s (userspace) = 24.380s
graphical.target reached after 19.850s in userspace
bob  ~ 

I wont complain about Mint again.

 

[bob466]

I should mention it's only the Boot time was a little slow...Software...Browsers...Documents and everything else is still as fast as lightning as it was in Cinnamon 19.1

 

[VanillaCoffee]

I tried it on a fast dual core 2 machine and boot up times were slow I ended up installing Lubuntu over it. I know MINT is a popular OS but I never could really get into it.

 

[The Duck]

 linuxlite  ~  systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 3.778s (firmware) + 5.277s (loader) + 8.232s (kernel) + 1min 24.067s (userspace) = 1min 41.356s 
graphical.target reached after 1min 23.789s in userspace

I have never paid any attention to boot times.
I power up my computer and get that first coffee and it's ready to use.
Linux Lite 6.4 runs great on my computer which came with Windows 8.

 

[sphen]

I tend to hold and use computers a long time. The previous laptop had a spinning hard disk drive. The current laptop has a solid state drive (SSD). The SSD is so much faster for everything, including boot times, when compared with the old spinning disk drives. Actually, there is no comparison.

The two things that help me most for boot and performance are disk performance and increasing RAM. In general, replacing a spinning drive with an SSD will instill new life in your old computer.

 

[The Duck]

I tend to hold and use computers a long time. The previous laptop had a spinning hard disk drive. The current laptop has a solid state drive (SSD). The SSD is so much faster for everything, including boot times, when compared with the old spinning disk drives. Actually, there is no comparison.

The two things that help me most for boot and performance are disk performance and increasing RAM. In general, replacing a spinning drive with an SSD will instill new life in your old computer.

An SSD would be an improvement but as long as the current hard drive is working I see no reason to replace it.
The current computer is 10 years old and works great.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[sphen]

An SSD would be an improvement but as long as the current hard drive is working I see no reason to replace it.
The current computer is 10 years old and works great.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Agreed 100%. I can live with slow, but can't live with "not secure" or "won't run what I need".

That said, changing a spinning drive for a new SSD drive can make an old computer new again, as long as it can still run a maintained secure OS. I do not switch out parts very often, but once gave a strong new life to an old slow laptop by changing out the spinning drive for an SSD. I had originally purchased the SSD for another system. I did not use it but did not want to see it go to waste. The improvement in that laptop's performance was remarkable.

 

[VanillaCoffee]

An SSD would be an improvement but as long as the current hard drive is working I see no reason to replace it.
The current computer is 10 years old and works great.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Same here if the HDD is in good order I leave it in. A lot of my computers I get given to me by offices who no longer need them them and they remove the hard drives for security so I get cheap SSD's to put in them. The prices on SSD's are really dropping now I can get a 240GB SSD for 12 pounds.

 

[The Duck]

I get cheap SSD's to put in them. The prices on SSD's are really dropping now I can get a 240GB SSD for 12 pounds.

Wow that's a really good deal because a 240 gigabyte Samsung SSD at my local mom and pop computer repair shop is around $35.00 dollars.

 

[VanillaCoffee]

Wow that's a really good deal because a 240 gigabyte Samsung SSD at my local mom and pop computer repair shop is around $35.00 dollars.

It depends on the brand. Samsung SSD's are generally a bit more but not by much about 20 pounds here.

 

[The Duck]

It depends on the brand. Samsung SSD's are generally a bit more but not by much about 20 pounds here.

I read that Samsung SSDs are one of the better choices but I wonder if they are actually any better than TeamGroup SSDs.

 

[sphen]

What does "better" mean? Faster? More reliable? Longer lifetime? Less prone to sudden death? You can measure "better" in countless ways.

 

[The Duck]

What does "better" mean? Faster? More reliable? Longer lifetime? Less prone to sudden death? You can measure "better" in countless ways.

Reliability of course.

 

[KGIII]

I wonder if they are actually any better than TeamGroup SSDs.

Having used them both, TeamGroup is awesome. I've used their drives fairly extensively since I first found them on NewEgg - so a while now. I've never had a single drive failure, and that includes numerous thumbdrives, SSDs, and even an NVMe SSD.

Their prices are fantastic. They match their rated speeds very nicely. They don't get excessively hot. I don't know their MTBF rates in the real world, but I suspect it's fairly close (and maybe better than some) to the MTBF you find with the better known brands. With current storage tech, the MTBF is such that you can expect a long lifetime, longer than you're likely to keep the device.

I was an early adopter with regards to SSD. I'm usually not 'bleeding edge', but I was with SSD tech.

If you're interested in TeamGroup products, the above would be how I'd review it - or close enough. Heck, I'm sure I have reviews posted on NewEgg, shouting the praises due the TeamGroup company.

 

[The Duck]

I have used TeamGroup usb flash drives for quite some time and have never had a failure.
Everything I've read about TeamGroup show them to make an excellent product with an excellent warranty like three years.
I have an old Dell desktop in the closet that needs a hard drive so I may just buy one and see how it works in that computer.

 

[bob466]

I'm surprised how much SSDs have dropped...in 2019 I payed $A125 for a Samsung 500GB SSD...now costs $A59.

I also have two Western Digital 500GB SSDs that now cost $A55 each...all run just fine and come with a 5 year warranty...I find a 500GB SSD good for running a Distro but I still have External HDDs for storage.

 

[sphen]

I'm surprised how much SSDs have dropped...in 2019 I payed $A125 for a Samsung 500GB SSD...now costs $A59.

I also have two Western Digital 500GB SSDs that now cost $A55 each...all run just fine and come with a 5 year warranty...I find a 500GB SSD good for running a Distro but I still have External HDDs for storage.

The price drops for SSDs has been nice to see. It isn't just SSDs, but anything to do with data storage. (I once paid half a million dollars (US) for 5.5 Gbytes of RAM. That large development system required a whopping 80 Mbytes of RAM per developer at a time when typical PCs came with 2 or maybe 4 Mbytes. ! Honestly, we were shocked at the RAM requirements for that particular development environment, but had no real alternatives. It flowed from customer-driven requirements.)

I have observed that more of the "bargain" virtual private servers (VPS) on the internet are running with SSDs. The price/performance of cheap VPSs has improved greatly as a result.

My offsite backups are still on a set of three 6-Tbyte spinning drives. One is the "master", which is cloned to "backup1" or "backup2" before the swap, which happens a few times a year. Switching to SSDs would save a lot of prep time, but SSDs at that capacity are still not in my personal affordable range. As I said somewhere here, I can live with slow as long as it is secure and reliable.

What hasn't been mentioned is how SSDs have resulted in huge decreases in the physical space needed for data storage, plus the new environments where that storage can work where spinning drives cannot. That contributed to the explosion in small devices with "large" storage capacity, like Raspberry Pi. It also enabled large storage capacities for systems that operate in very hostile physical environments.

 

[TedJ]

The price drops for SSDs has been nice to see. It isn't just SSDs, but anything to do with data storage. (I once paid half a million dollars (US) for 5.5 Gbytes of RAM. That large development system required a whopping 80 Mbytes of RAM per developer at a time when typical PCs came with 2 or maybe 4 Mbytes. ! Honestly, we were shocked at the RAM requirements for that particular development environment, but had no real alternatives. It flowed from customer-driven requirements.)

I have observed that more of the "bargain" virtual private servers (VPS) on the internet are running with SSDs. The price/performance of cheap VPSs has improved greatly as a result.

My offsite backups are still on a set of three 6-Tbyte spinning drives. One is the "master", which is cloned to "backup1" or "backup2" before the swap, which happens a few times a year. Switching to SSDs would save a lot of prep time, but SSDs at that capacity are still not in my personal affordable range. As I said somewhere here, I can live with slow as long as it is secure and reliable.

What hasn't been mentioned is how SSDs have resulted in huge decreases in the physical space needed for data storage, plus the new environments where that storage can work where spinning drives cannot. That contributed to the explosion in small devices with "large" storage capacity, like Raspberry Pi. It also enabled large storage capacities for systems that operate in very hostile physical environments.

It's incredible how technology has evolved, making storage more affordable and accessible for everyone. Your story about the exorbitant price you paid for RAM highlights how far we've come since then.

 

[sphen]

It's incredible how technology has evolved, making storage more affordable and accessible for everyone. Your story about the exorbitant price you paid for RAM highlights how far we've come since then.

It seemed high at the time, but not exorbitant. What was exorbitant was the amount of RAM required for that system per concurrent developer. In case anyone cares, it was the Rational Apex Ada development environment that ran on SunOS/Solaris. Rational Apex was a port of their original R1000 custom-designed hardware/software workstation (with a processor that ran Ada instructions native!). Rational was bought by IBM over 20 years ago.

The context are the years when "object-oriented" development was "the right way" but there was little experience with delivering large scale object-oriented projects. Memory management was not always well understood and a topic of active research. Even efficient code used a lot more RAM than before.

 

[KGIII]

SunOS/Solaris

I miss SunOS. Heck, I miss Sun.

I said, "Do you speak-a my language?"