Need help with a Suse 9.3 installation, was Why is Suse 9.3 Linux so slow

Post a copy of your startup log and let's take a look at it. Since this is a separate box and a first-time install, start off by *deleting* your log files, rebooting, and then posting a copy of the newly-recreated log files to this group. Also post a *comprehensive* list of your hardware, as detailled as you can provide it. Too much detail is not possible. Separate them with tear lines and make it as long as you need.

Facts are easier to address than suspicions. Flames are uncalled for amongst adults, and there *are* adults that hang out here. The question is vague enough to raise suspicions about its true intent. If Ubuntu runs fine and Suse does not, then it is not the basic OS, it is configuration, which can WILDLY hammer performance into the ground. Ubuntu is designed specifically for ease of install and *safe* buttumptions where autoconfiguration may not work. Suse is a bit more involved.

FWIW, I run another distribution on two different dual P2 400 mhz boxes with SCSI drives, RAID arrays, and 256 - 384 megs of RAM, and it runs extremely well. Better, in fact, than my 1.3 ghz Duron box with 256 megs of RAM and SCSI drives. The same distribution runs so well I install it on OP's boxes with a specific security profile in place and they report that it NEVER goes down. And these OP are computer cretins.

And my slowest box for an install was a Pentium 120, 16 megs of RAM, and 4 gigs of drive space. That's a resource-starved box, and Linux runs fine on it.

Nero is seriously quicker than anything I've seen, Windows or otherwise. IOW, subjective benchmarks are not entirely useful. As soon as the log files are posted and the startup-configuration is cleaned up, then some *objective* benchmarks would be useful for comparison.

Can also be your graphics adapter is incorrectly identified during install. IOW, subjective benchmarks are not entirely useful. As soon as the log files are posted and the startup-configuration is cleaned up, then some *objective* benchmarks would be useful for comparison.

IDE has a sustained throughput of 1.5 megs sec IIRC. IOW, subjective benchmarks are not entirely useful. As soon as the log files are posted and the startup-configuration is cleaned up, then some *objective* benchmarks would be useful for comparison.

Make sure your hardware list is sufficiently detailled.

Leaving it in the drive and attempting what, exactly? Just putting a recorded CD in the CD-ROM drive will do NOTHING unless automount is installed and active on your system. To reiterate, *delete* your logs, reboot, stress the system, and post the logs here along with a detailled hardware listing.

If it's the same burner you are using to burn CD's, then that's not surprising. GF has a DVD burner that's about to get retired because it burns CD's but won't burn a DVD under Windows-Nero.

I'm a pending MSCE who recommends it whenever someone is fed up with Windows and wants to at least see another choice. The EU's never go back and the corporate people moan about TCO and the cost of replacing proprietary, custom-developed software to replace proprietary, custom-written software for their current Windows environment. YMMV.

avid anti-spammer.