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

Re: [Computerbank] Re: [cai-sa] Colorful KDE 3.1 Performance On Low-End Hardware - Running KDE 3.1 On Antique Iron

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:33:49AM +1030, Romana Challans scrawled:
> Many thanks Dale, interesting article.
> This quote from the article re the specs of the ancient boxen...
> "The box had 128 MB of RAM, 256K of L2 cache, a 2.5 GB disk and Debian. Even 
> though KDE took about two and 1/2 minutes to load, most of the programs, 
> menus, icons and animations seemed to appear almost instantly and ran without 
> a hitch."
> So, how will it fare on p166 with only half the ram, which is what we 
> regularly distribute? Unknown, but upgrading to it atm, will be playing 
> with:) Also looking at Gnome 2.2 this week, on the strong urging of Pete 
> Gossner, who sings its praises, so look forward to that:) 

This is only anecdotal evidence, and I'm obviously biased, but I used
KDE on my P166 with 96mb of RAM perfectly for quite some time, and that
was KDE2.2 - KDE3 is an order of magnitude faster.

IMHO GNOME 2.2 has no place on user boxes. It has its place, but that's
not with end-users. It's exceptionally unconfigurable and unintuitive -
it took me a full 5min to find out how to configure Gnome Terminal, and
I'm not clueless, and I only found it out by brute force in the end!
(Edit->Profiles, indeed ...). It looks ... less awful ... than GNOME
1.4, but that's about it. If people explicitly ask for GNOME, we should
give it to them, but not if they don't.

Daniel, speaking for myself.

Attachment: pgp00009.pgp
Description: PGP signature