Vim in Arch slower than in other distros

Under my arch system, the vim text editor is much slower than under any distro. I wonder why this is? May it be all the colorschemes I loaded?
May it be that the arch build is too big of a bundle? (w/gvim etc.)
I just want my fav. text editor to be as fast as it is under ubunutu:/
version number for ubuntu is: 7.1.56
version number foir arch is: 7.1.228
Please, if anyone have tips to speeding up my vim, please send me some hints
Last edited by hardframed (2008-01-23 19:10:14)

Hrmm... I use vim daily (if not hourly), but I don't find it to be any slower (or faster really) than on any other distro, including ubuntu and fedora. I would almost be willing to bet though, that due to the high number of dedicated vim users among the Arch developers, that vim is about as optimized as one would expect.
Also, as for as I can tell there are no GUI components (gvim) included with the standard vim build so I'm not sure where you found that info...I could be wrong, of course.
If you have a lot of customizations in your .vimrc and/or have lots of themes, I would definitely try to remove them temporarily and see if there's an increase in performance.
PS: This thread might be more appropriate in the Workstation User category--you may not get a lot of coverage here.
Last edited by thayer (2008-01-23 15:27:21)

Similar Messages

[SOLVED] Arch slower than Suse?

Hello all,
A few weeks ago I installed Arch over openSuse 11.2, because I liked the idea of Arch. I think OpenSuse is a great distro, I really liked it, but the rolling release model of Arch also sounds very good.
Now I have a working KDEmod desktop on top of Arch, and everything works. But in comparison with OpenSuse, it seems slower in everything. I can't really pinpoint what it is, top doesn't show strange processes or high values, the harddisk isn't constantly working. But for some reason all apps just start slower, the KDE-menu has a lag of a second for all items, firefox is slow on opening and displaying webpages.
On OpenSuse (11.2 with KDE) this wasn't a problem.
Is there a way to determine what is causing this slowness?
My hardware:
Asus laptop: Intel Pentium M 1700 Mhz
Memory: 1Gb
Nvidia Geforce Go 7300
I'm using KDEmod (KDE 4.4) on Arch.
Thanks in advance
Last edited by b2b (2010-02-16 15:12:35)

brazzmonkey wrote:From my own experience, KDE 4.4 feels slower than previous releases.
Yeah, and on my box it breaks badly Hal. After an update nothing more was working because the hardware was not detected anymore
I removed KDE4.4, installed Gnome instead and til now it works perfectly (and quicker)...Tough I miss a little KDE4 which I found very eye candy...
Last edited by Gnux (2010-02-16 14:37:50)

Arch + gnome|kde against other distros

Arch for me is a perfect distro in that sense, that I know exactly, where all configuration is stored, what every file means and where to dig in case of problems.
But this is true only if I don't use major DEs, such as gnome or kde.
So I want to ask the community, what advantages and disadvantages Arch has against other distros with gnome/kde/etc (not counting rolling-release)?
TNX.
edit:
As for me, Arch's main advantage - simple configuration through text files. I guess it is the same for many Arch users. But not for all.
Why people, who prefer to use kde/gnome use Arch?
Last edited by eDio (2009-10-18 21:40:20)

I use ArchLinux with KDE4 because Arch gives me exactly what I want, no less, no more. KDE4 likes to be bloated and come with loads of useless crap, but not on Arch. Arch divides KDE into modules so I only get EXACTLY what i want. This makes my system fast, entirely customized, and yet it still looks good. Also if I want to remove KDE and install something else, it's extremely easy. Lastly, I love how standard Arch is. Packages are extremely standardized, none of this crap "flavoring"(as I like to call it) other distros employ, which cause more issues than they fix. Here everything is "standard linux". Everything conforms and makes sense, manual editing is simple. The AUR and PKGBUILD system is also absolutely fantastic, and probably my favorite part of the distro(along with tools like yaourt and the fact that most AUR packages also follow the Arch Packaging Standard)

Firefox is supposed to be faster - it's far slower than any other version & I'm going to back to Explorer - this is too much & it keeps crashing!. Is anything going to be sorted soon?

It is now so slow to load pages - I can have coffee and then maybe a page has loaded. Otherwise it's "embarrassed" because it cannot load pages/ bookmarks. This version is terrible - can you not put back the previous version till you've sorted out the problems?

I don't know anything about that. But I googled it and found this post in another forum -
"I have more info on the issue at hand.
The RDTSC instruction has, until recently, been an excellent high-resolution, low-overhead way of getting CPU timing information. With the advent of multi-core/hyperthreaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and "hibernating" operating systems, RDTSC often no longer provides reliable results. The issue has two components: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no longer any promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. So, you can no longer get reliable timestamp values unless you lock your program to using a single CPU. Even then, the CPU speed may change due to power-saving measures taken by the OS or BIOS, or the system may be hibernated and later resumed (resetting the time stamp counter).
I might be understanding this wrong but... Basically both RDTSC and QPC are used to time code in time-sensitive programs. However, RDTSC might be inaccurate in above described situations. I also might be wrong about this but I believe QPC has something to do with the HPET high precision event timer. Which is a more accurate timer.
So this might explain why RDTSC and QPC has a delta that is too high. And if all of what I said above is true, then this error is benign."
This signature left intentionally blank.

Downloads in Firefox are slower than in other applications

Downloads in Firefox always seemed to be lightning quick. Now a 84 MB file is taking over 30 minutes to download.
Any thoughts?

Many site issues can be caused by corrupt cookies or cache. In order to try to fix these problems, the first step is to clear both cookies and the cache.
Note: ''This will temporarily log you out of all sites you're logged in to.''
To clear cache and cookies do the following:
#Go to Firefox > History > Clear recent history or (if no Firefox button is shown) go to Tools > Clear recent history.
#Under "Time range to clear", select "Everything".
#Now, click the arrow next to Details to toggle the Details list active.
#From the details list, check ''Cache'' and ''Cookies'' and uncheck everything else.
#Now click the ''Clear now'' button.
Further information can be found in the [[Clear your cache, history and other personal information in Firefox]] article.
Did this fix your problems? Please report back to us!

Internet is very slow compared to other computers

I've recently picked up a macbook air and have noticed that the internet was going much slower than my other 2 computers (wired desktop and wireless laptop both running windows 7).
I ran a speed test on all three within a few feet of the router and the speed was about 50 Mbps for all three. Then I moved the 2 laptops about 15 feet away with a wall inbetween, and the windows laptop still got the same numbers, but the macbook only got about 15 Mbps. I'v run the test many times but I keep coming up with similar results. I can only get the fast speeds if the macbook is within a few feet of the router.
What could be causing this? Are the wireless capabilities in my macbook really this weak? There has to be something I can do to fix this...

I realize that, but I also got the same speeds with my other wireless laptop (thinkpad t420s). The speed should be at around 50 Mbps regardless of whether it's wired or wireless according to my test.
So if it's an antenna issue, does it mean I need to have the macbook serviced at an apple store?
I'm not really interested in getting a range extender, it's not something I feel I should need, especially when I have another laptop getting 3x faster speeds without the need for one.

Having to much trouble with arch. What other distros do you recomend?

I've been trying to geet arch running flawlessly on my thinkpad x61 for the last month.
But I've run in to some problems that I can't solve.
The iwlwifi-4965-ucode drivers unstable and gives me kernelpanics. Tried to roll them back but nothing happend.
I'm having problems with my xorg. It worked flawlessly under kubuntu but in arch I get some strange lines when things moving horizontaly on my screen. Like the image is splitting into 2 pieces instead of one. Have been configuring my xorg for weeks without any result.
Feels like I need some other distro.
I like the whole from scratch idea.

timetrap wrote:
I think you misunderstand what a linux distro is. There is no secret sauce that makes one distro better than the other. They all have the same ingredients. What make distros different is how they put the same ingredients together.
I am assuming you went here http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/lenovo.html and looked at this http://pi-ist-genau-3.de/?page_id=344
And I am assuming you looked at this too (regarding your wireless) http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10984
tried the xorg.conf from "debian on lenovo x61" and its a dualscreen configuration. And I actually had a 1680x1050 samsung syncmaster standing in a closet so I plugged it in and tried to play movies @ both screens and I get the same result on both screens no matter what mediaplayer I run. So something must be wrong with my intel driver?
My xorg.conf before I tested the dualscreen xorg, witch gives me the same problem.
Using xf86-video-intel driver.
And about the wifidrivers. A bug is allways a bug no matter if it's known or not. Still a problem.
Last edited by bredin (2008-08-18 20:14:30)

What Arch does and other distros don't

You know, there's one thing I really like about Arch, which I think isn't noted all that much: this distro actually lets you do an FTP install with floppies! Really, how many other distros let you do that? Not bloody many. This may not sound like a bit issue, I know, but it's definitely a plus for those of us who don't have CD burners and don't feel like waiting 3 weeks to get a CD mailed to us.
So, to the Arch devs: thank you very, very much for giving us folk in the world of outdated hardware a way to do installs with ease and convenience!

Gullible Jones wrote:this distro actually lets you do an FTP install with floppies!
I just recently read a usenet post where someone wanted to install Linux on his old laptop, which had just a floppy drive, and couldn't boot from external cd. This is where floppy+ftp installation becomes handy. But the problem with these cases is that the old machines may not be i686.
So, floppy+ftp install is a nice feature, but I reckon it's rarely needed with a machine with i686 processor...

Can arch binaries be used for other distros

hi,
Can arch binaries be used for other linux distributions like slackware and ubuntu?

Acecero wrote:
karol wrote:
Acecero wrote:
There was a community project that started a while ago where you can create packages for other distros in Arch called unipkg.
Though I don't know if there is any activity anymore...
http://github.com/paradoq/unipkg looks quite fresh.
To me it appears there was no activity since it started 2 months ago. I understand it is a fresh project, just no recent updates.
Ooops, you're right, not much going on there.

My MacBook Air shut down is slower than other macs I have seen

I think this is due to the recent Mac OS 10.8.2 update
My MacBook Air shuts down slower than usual. It will get slow and show a white screen with a spinining wheel taking up to 15 seconds.
This is longer than the startup time.
When it was new, I think it was running Mac OS 10.8.1. Shutdown was super speedy and took maybe just 3 seconds. It then asked me to update, so I obviously did, since I thought new improvments were made.
So how can I get rid of this slow shut down timings?

You might try resetting the SMC. If that does not work, take it in for service (you are under warranty).
Barry

Two Macbooks on Shared Network: 1 slower than other

We have to 2 nearly identical Macbooks (both 2006), running 10.6, sharing a home Time Capsule network.
Problem is, one (mine) is much faster on the network than the other (wife's).
Again, we have the same network cards in our Macbooks, and when I check our basic network settings in the TC, it all appears the same.
What could be causing her slow network? (And its not her location--we move around all the time, and the problem is consistent regardless of location..)
What deeper network settings or diagnostics can I check to solve this?
Thanks

There was a paid 'n enabler' update for early MacBooks to support wireless draft N.
Is it possible that the update was only installed on one of your two?
More info and how to tell if it is installed: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2447

Forum section for Arch-derived and "installation-assisted" distros?

Apparently there's a policy that posts regarding Archbang, Bridge Linux and other "installation-assisted" Arch distros will be moved to that purgatory of forum sections known as "Off Topic".
I'm wondering if a new forum section could be established to accommodate discussion of these distros.
For example, I think it's helpful for Arch users to know that there are ways to achieve a quick and painless Arch installation if you don't have time to go through the config yourself. I've been using Arch for seven years and have installed it many times, but recently I needed to install Arch in a hurry. Bridge Linux let me do just that, and I suspect Archbang would have, as well.
I think the Arch forum mods are trying to keep the forum focused on the essential Arch experience of installing from scratch, editing config files, etc. That's fine, but I suggest that a section be opened for installation-assisted Arch distros to accommodate Archbang, Bridge and other distros that yield an Arch system.
People who use these "installation-assisted" distros are running full-fledged Arch Linux, not another distro derived from Arch.
As things stand, it's almost as if you shouldn't expect support on the Arch forum if your spouse or a friend installed your system for you!
Thanks.
Last edited by dhave (2012-04-05 17:26:08)

As one of the moderators, allow me to chime in here. First off:
dhave: It was good trading emails with you earlier this week. After we communicated, I saw that my colleague moved your post to off-topic. Sorry, I did not have the opportunity to let them know you and I had communicated. Regardless, off topic really is not purgatory -- that would be "Topics Going Nowhere" (Actually, I suppose that would be limbo in Dante's view) The other side of Styx would be "Dustbin". Some of the best discussions occur in off-topic
In general, I am pretty easy going and try not to interfere with healthy discussion. We are, after all, a community. Not everything needs to be Arch centric. I am also fairly tolerant of questions that have clearly been asked and answered before; sometimes because new users don't know what they don't know. I don't mind doing some hand holding. Sadly, some folks never get with the program
Jason, Allan : good to see you both. Hope you are having a good autumn down there.
As to other distributions, here is the thing. These are the Arch Linux forums. People who are researching problems here depend on these forums as a dedicated Arch resource. The moderator team works to keep these forums on topic and prevent "contamination" from distributions that handle things differently than Arch and may cause confusion or may be plain old wrong with respect to Arch.
As such, a friendly discussion about Bridge Linux is harmless; whereas questions about Archbang (a fine distribution) on the Arch forums can be a direct cause of misinformation that creates problems for the users of both distributions.
Last edited by ewaller (2012-04-06 06:53:09)

Arch Slow Boot

This may seem like a trivial question.
When I used to use Arch Linux 0.6 I used to boot in about 3 seconds.
When I switched over to the 0.7 and new kernel it now takes about 10 - 15 min to boot.
This is kind of hindering my usage of Arch as my primary OS.
THe part of the boot that takes seems to slow down is when it checks all of my IDE devices. It seems to try to detect hdc, hdd, hde, hdf, hdg and takes forever and everntually says "(Resetting Drive)".
Here is my fstab:
# /etc/fstab: static file system information
# <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
none /proc proc defaults 0 0
none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults 0 0
sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
usbfs /proc/bus/usb usbfs defaults 0 0
/dev/cdroms/cdrom0 /mnt/cd iso9660 ro,user,noauto,unhide 0 0
/dev/cdroms/cdrom0 /mnt/dvd udf ro,user,noauto,unhide 0 0
/dev/floppy/0 /mnt/fl vfat user,noauto,unhide 0 0
/dev/discs/disc0/part3 / ext3 defaults 0 1
/dev/discs/disc0/part1 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1
/dev/discs/disc0/part2 swap swap defaults 0 0
Thanks for any help you may give.

My System specs are
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (3.6 Ghz)
1.5 GB of Corsair DDR2 4300
ATI Radeon 7000 PCI Card :oops:
WD 60GB SATA Drive
By the way, when I say the boot time, I'm refering to the time that Arch Linux itself boots. From GRUB/LILO to the logon display not the whole computer.
I'm also running very few sevrices yet, I don't have CUPS, Alsa, Samba, or Apache, MySQL, PHP... running yet. I figure that when I install these it will about 20 seconds. Which is still pretty fast. And much better than that "other operating system" I used to run.

Why is firefox slower than before the reset?

The past 8 weeks Firefox has been extremely slow. I've tried safe mode and all the other web suggestions and finally did the 'Reset'. Now Firefox is slower than it was before the reset. Google, Duck Duck Go and IE. I've also tried Safari, which I didn't like, but all of them were faster than Firefox. Can anybody help me? I'm not that computer savvy to do a clean install and don't the $$ to have it done. Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

Maybe you can do a clean install by following these instructions:
'''Note:''' You might want to print these steps or view them in another browser.
#Download the latest Desktop version of Firefox from [https://www.mozilla.org mozilla.org] (or choose the download for your operating system and language from [https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/all/ this page]) and save the setup file to your computer.
#After the download finishes, close all Firefox windows (or open the Firefox menu [[Image:New Fx Menu]] and click the close button [[Image:Close 29]]).
#Delete the Firefox installation folder, which is located in one of these locations, by default:
#*'''Windows:'''
#**C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox
#**C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox
#*'''Mac:''' Delete Firefox from the Applications folder.
#*'''Linux:''' If you installed Firefox with the distro-based package manager, you should use the same way to uninstall it - see [[Installing Firefox on Linux]]. If you downloaded and installed the binary package from the [http://www.mozilla.org/firefox#desktop Firefox download page], simply remove the folder ''firefox'' in your home directory.
#Now, go ahead and reinstall Firefox:
##Double-click the downloaded installation file and go through the steps of the installation wizard.
##Once the wizard is finished, choose to directly open Firefox after clicking the Finish button.
More information about reinstalling Firefox can be found [[Troubleshoot and diagnose Firefox problems#w_5-reinstall-firefox|here]].
<b>WARNING:</b> Do not use a third party uninstaller as part of this process. Doing so could permanently delete your [[Profiles|Firefox profile]] data, including but not limited to, extensions, cache, cookies, bookmarks, personal settings and saved passwords. <u>These cannot be easily recovered unless they have been backed up to an external device!</u> See [[Back up and restore information in Firefox profiles]]. 
Please report back to say if this helped you!
Thank you.

Airport Drives Me CRAZY! New 802.11n Network Slower Than Old 802.11g/b

I've been using Macs since 1988 and consider myself an advanced user. However, every time I setup a new Airport wireless network or re-configure an existing one, I feel like a helpless newbie trying to figure out how to open a folder on my desktop. No matter how many times I read the manual or the help files or these forums, I can never grasp what seems like it should be a simple path from A to B to C.
Anyway, here's my current situation: I've been successfully (I think) running a 6 year old AP Extreme Base Station [AE] (in my home office addition) and 2 Airport Expresses [AX] (one AX roughly 15 feet from the base station--through sheetrock, and the second AX roughly 30 feet from the first AX--through sheetrock and some wooden stairs. (so roughly 45 feet from AE to 2nd AX). It wasn't the speediest thing going but it did the trick with older Macs.
I recently bought a MacBook Pro which supports 802.11n. I most often use this laptop at the point in the house furthest away from the AE (Base Station) The AE (Base Station) is in my home office connected to my MacPro desktop (see #1 below). In addition, the family iMac is also in that room furthest from the AE. Using the new MacBook Pro with the old 802.11/g/b network turned out to be painfully slow. I was experiencing the same slow network connection my family has complained about for years with their older Macs and 802.11g/b.
I decided it was time to upgrade the whole network, if only to speed up my MacBook Pro connection. Bought new 802.11n Airport Extreme (MC340LL/A) and 2 new 802.11n Airport Expresses (MB321LL/A). Setup did not go smoothly. Again, my normally competent Mac persona was reduced to a babbling three-year-old. Had three different Apple techs on the phone trying to help me through it. Got different, contradictory instructions from the last two. Finally got all three units working, only to find that not only does my MacBook Pro seem even more sluggish than when connected to the old 802.11g/b network, but my wife tells me web pages are taking at least twice as long to load as with the old network.
As concisely as I can lay this out:
*1. Airport Extreme (Base Station)*
Connected via Ethernet from its WAN port to my Comcast cable modem. One Ethernet (LAN) port on that AE is then connected via Ethernet to my Netgear 8-port Ethernet switch. Ethernet from switch to Ethernet port 1 on my MacPro. (MacPro does NOT have an Airport card because I forgot to order one. Also I confirmed that this setup was functional by connecting to the AE wirelessly with my MacBook Pro showing the name I'd given the new network prior to adding the two AX's to the mix).
Some Airport Extreme settings of note (all accessed via "Manual Setup" button):
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.5.1
Wireless Mode: Create a wireless network
Channel: 149 (Automatic), 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 3
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over WAN: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Allow this network to be extended: Checked
Airport Tab > Guest Network:
Nothing checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect Using: Ethernet
Ethernet WAN Port: Automatic (Default)
Connection Sharing: Share a public IP address [Think this one is probably wrong]
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Internet Tab > DHCP:
Shows Beginning & Ending Address
Internet Tab > NAT:
Enable default host at: Unchecked and blank field
Enable NAT Port Mapping Protocol: Checked
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
*2. Airport Express #1: Living Room Express (Closest to AE (Base Station)*
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.4.2
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Connect using: Wireless Network
Channel: 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 1
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over the Internet using Bonjour: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Allow wireless clients: checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect using: Greyed-out, not selectable
Connection sharing: Greyed-out, not selectable
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Shows IP Address
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
*3. Airport Express #2: Dining Room Express (Furthest from AE (Base Station)*
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.4.2
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Connect using: Wireless Network
Channel: 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 2
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over the Internet using Bonjour: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Allow wireless clients: checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect using: Greyed-out, not selectable
Connection sharing: Greyed-out, not selectable
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Shows IP Address
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
SETUP/GOALS:
With Airport Extreme (Base Station) as the starting point, have the two Airport Express units with the strongest, fastest signal possible, provide Internet access (and file sharing, iTunes speakers capability) to three Macs (one older iMac, one older PowerBook and my new MacBookPro). Again, I believe my new MacBook Pro is the only one with 802.11n support, so I don't expect the other Macs to take advantage of the speed boost offered by the three new 802.11n devices.
+Any and all help with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!+

{quote}With the AirPort Extreme, in the AirPort panel, Wireless tab, click on the button for "Wireless Network Options", check the box for "5 GHz Network Name", and enter a different network name. (That can be trivially different, such as the name of the main network suffixed with an underscore and the digit 5.) Once configured that way, connect your "N" gear to each network in turn to see if one is any better than the other. (If you're wondering what effect this would have, it allows segregating your "N" gear from the older gear to prevent the older gear from slowing down your network. However, distance and interference from things like walls may negate any advantage.){quote}
William: I was gone most of yesterday, but had a chance to implement your recommendations today. I added the 5 GHz network as you suggested, but in order to connect to that at all with my 802.n11 MacBokk Pro, I need to be within a few feet of the AE (base station). If I try to access that network even from the next room (well within reach of both the AE and the livingroom AX, I get one bar and "failure to connect" messages just trying to logon to that network.
However, I did some experimenting that (as of right now, anyway) resulted in much faster network access, not only from my MacBook, but also from the older iMac which is the furthest Mac from the AE. According to my wife, that iMac is "loading web pages faster than I've ever seen them!"
Here's what I did:
1. Moved all three units to places where it seemed they would have the least amount of interference with the clearest path from unit to unit, also raising the height of both AXs from about 2-3 feet from the floor to about 5-6 feet from the floor.
2. Changed one setting on the AE (base station): Wireless Tab > Wireless Network Options > Multicast Rate ---> Changed this from Low to High.
I have a feeling the location shifts made the real difference, but I will try changing the multicast rate back to "Low" just to see what happens.
Paul

Vim in Arch slower than in other distros

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for