Ultimate Edition Forum

You asked for it! and here it is! Ultimate Edition LITE !
http://ultimateedition.info/ultimate_ed ... -2-8-lite/

I will soon have a "How to" using Lite to boot the entire system into ram for those with the extra memory, slows down boot time, but it totally flys after the fact:


You are reading that right minimum transfer rate 1.7 GB/s minimum, max 16 GB/s. Solid State drives eat your hearts out. Everything loads instantaneous. I have 8GB of ram but the ram requirements will be much less using Lite. Please stand by for the howto. Avg access time 0.0ms lol.

JohnnyG, thanks for writing the post for lite.

TheeMahn wrote:I will soon have a "How to" using Lite to boot the entire system into ram for those with the extra memory, slows down boot time, but it totally flys after the fact:{my emphasis}

May I ask:

a. what is the definition of "extra" memory?

b. why isn't all of Linux ALREADY in memory, if the OS establishes that the user possesses sufficient memory?

c. how can a user ELIMINATE those parts of Linux, not needed for a particular application, so that THERE WOULD BE sufficient memory to load the remnants into system RAM, instead of paging out to the hard disk?

d. Is the browser I use with Windows 98 (SeaMonkey 1.13), which loads in just 2 seconds on a PIII system at 1.1GHz, (compared with 10 seconds for FireFox on the most recent release of KDE (PCLinuxOS) on the same computer) faster because windows 98 has loaded the browser into memory during boot up, or because obsolete SeaMonkey is so much smaller than modern FireFox?

e. I have the impression, not yet confirmed, but a suspicion, that Ultimate Edition LITE ALREADY has some components loaded into memory, which may explain why I have faster times for loading FireFox with Ultimate Edition lite, compared with PCLOS LXDE. Am I correct in that assumption, or is Ultimate Edition Lite simply faster, without yet loading the browser into memory?

Thanks for your help.

CAI ENG

caieng wrote:

TheeMahn wrote:I will soon have a "How to" using Lite to boot the entire system into ram for those with the extra memory, slows down boot time, but it totally flys after the fact:{my emphasis}

May I ask:

a. what is the definition of "extra" memory?

b. why isn't all of Linux ALREADY in memory, if the OS establishes that the user possesses sufficient memory?

c. how can a user ELIMINATE those parts of Linux, not needed for a particular application, so that THERE WOULD BE sufficient memory to load the remnants into system RAM, instead of paging out to the hard disk?

d. Is the browser I use with Windows 98 (SeaMonkey 1.13), which loads in just 2 seconds on a PIII system at 1.1GHz, (compared with 10 seconds for FireFox on the most recent release of KDE (PCLinuxOS) on the same computer) faster because windows 98 has loaded the browser into memory during boot up, or because obsolete SeaMonkey is so much smaller than modern FireFox?

e. I have the impression, not yet confirmed, but a suspicion, that Ultimate Edition LITE ALREADY has some components loaded into memory, which may explain why I have faster times for loading FireFox with Ultimate Edition lite, compared with PCLOS LXDE. Am I correct in that assumption, or is Ultimate Edition Lite simply faster, without yet loading the browser into memory?

Thanks for your help.

CAI ENG

I have not forgot, I have alot going on right now - so nothing has changed. I have not had the time for even our admin to test what I refer to. I promise what I refer to to be cutting edge, I have had solidstate in the past. This is a new animal. Let me attempt to address your issues:

a. I have 8GB of memory as can be seen as per my sig. 8GB is excessive by most machines, linux needs much less then a windows based machine. No pun intended. Lite wise 2 GB may be the answer I am looking at, I can not give a solemn answer. Please read further. I have never exceed my bounds. I have loaded 2.6.1 into memory. Does that exist?

b. Would require thinking outside of the box. I am the kind of individual that can make such happen.

c. I have wrote about doing such things. I do not use a swap file, I understand the implications if I supersede my memory limits. Then again... I do not have a printer, why load cups and suck up memory? Want me to fix it?

d. You have me here, pretty rare for me to say. I have worked on writing a ram drive to take away a slow hard disk and replace with memory. Most are oblivious to how much traffic is involved in just /tmp. I have not had the time to write software to punch out memory to your hard disk as of currently on a reboot for example. Using this method will actually slow down boot time, however a new ballgame while running it. How often do I reboot? We are in Linux right?

e. No, I am sorry to inform you I did not go down that path. I will be straight I did strip things from Ultimate Edition lite before I even started, many builds later is what you have. None were services. I did contemplate adding Nautilus, does not sound lite does it

I am writing software that makes all the above look like a joke. Please work with me. It will shake up the entire community. I hope you can understand first what and follow though with what I am doing. I do not care what O/S you run they are coming to see me. That sounds Cocky, 30 years of programming. I deserve it. Wait until you see what I have coming for you.

Pretty rare for me to even post.

TheeMahn,

Thanks TheeMahn, for taking the time to respond to my questions. Much appreciated.

When I inquired about the definition of "extra" memory, what I meant, (I should have been more precise, sorry) was this: one of my open box systems displays on the desktop a constantly changing text representing system information, in particular, the amount of memory currently in use, and the amount available. It also shows "swap usage" and cpu activity as a percentage. "Swap usage", as I write this, is zero, RAM: 378 MB/0.98 GB.

In other words, apparently, it would seem as though I am exploiting only about one third of my available memory. Perhaps I am not correctly interpreting the data, or perhaps the data itself is inaccurate, I don't know how it is procured.

Thanks again, for all of your comments, I look forward to the new edition, and will be glad to provide beta testing, if it would be useful.

CAI ENG

caieng wrote:Thanks TheeMahn, for taking the time to respond to my questions. Much appreciated.

When I inquired about the definition of "extra" memory, what I meant, (I should have been more precise, sorry) was this: one of my open box systems displays on the desktop a constantly changing text representing system information, in particular, the amount of memory currently in use, and the amount available. It also shows "swap usage" and cpu activity as a percentage. "Swap usage", as I write this, is zero, RAM: 378 MB/0.98 GB.

In other words, apparently, it would seem as though I am exploiting only about one third of my available memory. Perhaps I am not correctly interpreting the data, or perhaps the data itself is inaccurate, I don't know how it is procured.

Thanks again, for all of your comments, I look forward to the new edition, and will be glad to provide beta testing, if it would be useful. Why did I care? A tester on the downside. Most do not understand what I do.

CAI ENG

Wow, why were you not asked to be added to mod list? You are on top of it right like here right now. I am working through this situation. I am not going to promote you. Leave that to the bigboyz. I want to retire. At least until I educate. Ram you will not get away with at least as I have posted.

10,000 ppl means squat to me, however I see you online as I am. I see admin online as well, all good. What I intend open a eye or 2.

I did not mean for this to get open. We have 11 servers, typically rocks most ppls world. We are a simpleton. please maintain that thought process I have new coming.

Nothing against admin, what I write I have copywrite.

I downloaded Lite last night, burned it to a disk, and tried it on my 2001 model Sony Vaio laptop (AMD Athlon 1.0 GHz processor, 512 Mb RAM). It loaded fine... but did not find a driver for my (also not very new) wireless (802.11n) modem (running as a live CD boot). So it's moderately useless to me right now.

I run Ubuntu Karmic (GNOME) on this laptop right now. I liked Lucid UNE, but it ran very slowly, and there is no Unity driver for this machine (probably doesn't have enough RAM to run Unity anyhow). I have run MacPup 5.11 on it very successfully, and so was looking forward to an Enlightenment-based Ubuntu but have to settle for LXDE for now.

Any ideas what I have to do to get Ultimate Edition Lite to work right?

Moss

RE download, RE burn at the slowest speed RE install, I find this to be the best option, we see this when users just want it now !!! Like anything in life Ultimate Edition is meant to be taken seriously and be respected ! so don't push it ! Ultimate Edition Lite Is a Experiment ! Made by one of the best there is, It works for 99% of the users, other issues are almost always self inflected ! Or your sony is balony !!

Sorry to report that this 2.8 did not work flawlessly for me as did the 2.8 Gamers Dvd...I don't know if it was the lighter weight Desktop or if it was more to do with proprietary drivers for my Nvidia card not installing properly. Until I figure it out though, I have to put it down to my side type errors. However nothing was wrong with the distro from my observations, it was just not being able to run stuff with graphics, so I believe it was card issues...yet still, completely flawless with 2.8 Gamers Ed. DvD...and I know 64bit will be same for me...yet I want to try sticking my live DvD in (32bit) and booting it off my 64bit machine...in theory this should be quite possible...but I want to know what happens in reality.