buster = slow laptop?

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

buster = slow laptop?

mark-19
Hi people,

I'm asking your advice here because since upgrading from stretch to
buster, my laptop has "become slow" by which I mean applications take
longer to open, new windows take several seconds to complete drawing on
the desktop and there's a noticeable lag when I use the mouse to select
text (you can see the text becoming highlighted one char at a time).

I wonder, is one of the new features in buster (e.g. ACLs) too taxing on
my old machine, and if so can I turn it off?

The machine in question is a ThinkPad T500, core2duo processor 2.4GHz,
with 4GB RAM and an SSD - see https://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:T500 .

I installed first with default Gnome desktop, then ran that without
Wayland, then switched to Mate, but none of that helped.

Any suggestions please?

Thanks in advance,
Mark

--
OpenPGP key expiry date extended - refresh from pool.


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster = slow laptop?

dekks herton
mark <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi people,
>
> I'm asking your advice here because since upgrading from stretch to
> buster, my laptop has "become slow" by which I mean applications take
> longer to open, new windows take several seconds to complete drawing on
> the desktop and there's a noticeable lag when I use the mouse to select
> text (you can see the text becoming highlighted one char at a time).
>
> I wonder, is one of the new features in buster (e.g. ACLs) too taxing on
> my old machine, and if so can I turn it off?
>
> The machine in question is a ThinkPad T500, core2duo processor 2.4GHz,
> with 4GB RAM and an SSD - see https://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:T500 .
>
> I installed first with default Gnome desktop, then ran that without
> Wayland, then switched to Mate, but none of that helped.
>
> Any suggestions please?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark

Hi,

On the face of it no as my T60p made the change fine that didn't tax the
2.33Ghz CPU. Maybe journalctl -b might give some clues? What GFX does
the T500 have? Intel or Ati

--
Regards.........
 
PGP Fingerprint: 3DF8 311C 4740 B5BC 3867  72DF 1050 452F 9BCE BA00
https://keybase.pub/dekks_herton/mykey.asc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster = slow laptop?

Gerard Bekhuis


Am 06.09.19 um 02:46 schrieb Dekks Herton:

> mark <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Hi people,
>>
>> I'm asking your advice here because since upgrading from stretch to
>> buster, my laptop has "become slow" by which I mean applications take
>> longer to open, new windows take several seconds to complete drawing on
>> the desktop and there's a noticeable lag when I use the mouse to select
>> text (you can see the text becoming highlighted one char at a time).
>>
>> I wonder, is one of the new features in buster (e.g. ACLs) too taxing on
>> my old machine, and if so can I turn it off?
>>
>> The machine in question is a ThinkPad T500, core2duo processor 2.4GHz,
>> with 4GB RAM and an SSD - see https://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:T500 .
>>
>> I installed first with default Gnome desktop, then ran that without
>> Wayland, then switched to Mate, but none of that helped.
>>
>> Any suggestions please?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Mark
> Hi,
>
> On the face of it no as my T60p made the change fine that didn't tax the
> 2.33Ghz CPU. Maybe journalctl -b might give some clues? What GFX does
> the T500 have? Intel or Ati
>
Hi.

Perhaps you try to install the xfce-desktop environment.
Xfce use not much resources.

GĂ©rard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster = slow laptop?

Stefan Monnier
In reply to this post by mark-19
> buster, my laptop has "become slow" by which I mean applications take
> longer to open, new windows take several seconds to complete drawing on
> the desktop and there's a noticeable lag when I use the mouse to select
> text (you can see the text becoming highlighted one char at a time).

Reminds me of things I saw when using Gnome on a system where there was
no driver for the GPU (aka "3D graphics").

Maybe it's just some firmware missing or an old /etc/X11/xorg.conf
forcing the use of a now-discontinued driver?

Just a stab in the dark, sorry: my crystal ball is still sleeping,


        Stefan