Re: desktop mem usage [was Re: Candidacy - Alan Cox]

Linas Vepstas wrote:

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:41:37AM -0500, Havoc Pennington was heard to remark:

I don't think it's actually that hard, and to be really snappy on good
hardware you have to be usable on bad hardware.

Hmm. Maybe I spoke too soon. Maybe I need to reflect this back to Alan Cox. 3-4 years ago, I was running gnome-1.0 on a p-166 w/64meg ram (doing development & other things) and performance was acceptable (in fact, it was 2x faster than win95 on the same machine, which... well, I'm not a poet, but it calls for some superlative that embodies a whole rainbow of emotions and feelings.)

Is gnome-1.4 worse, or about the same?  I mean the core of the panel
loaded with some 'typical' applets & sawmill?  Can I then load up
one copy of evolution and a copy of galleon and a copy of abiword
without mollases'ing the system? I dunno, I haven't tried. Its hard to be objective after living with a fast system, but, is it still zippier
than win95?    If the answer is 'yes', then my apologies for my
alarmist chime-in on alan's remark.

I used for about a year Gnome 1.2 on a G3 233 with 32 megs, and it was quite sluggish (but somewhat usable). Added quite a fair bit of RAM (don't remember if it was 64 or 128 megs), and it became much much better. I reckon that these days Gnome 1.4 is usable on a 300 -> 500 MHz class computer with over 64 megs of RAM.

De-bloating is a good idea for a bunch of applications, but you can't expect a full-fledge desktop to run nicely on a very slow machine.

XFCE for example is a nice desktop to run on this kind of machine, and using small applications instead of the bigger ones is a pretty good solution (for example, encompass instead of galeon, gnomecal and balsa instead of evolution...)

Unix systems like RAM... that's a fact.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]