Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
    I guess the critical thing is that if you have 512Mbytes or more, any desktop (other than perhaps Kubuntu) will run fine.......
    Kubuntu is fine in 512M, but I wouldn't ever recommend someone run it on a 256M machine. I generally recommend one of the Buntus where possible and depending of user needs, but when you're talking about a 256M machine then Arch looks like a much better choice.

    I consider a 256M machine a special case when it comes to OS selection. Ease of use and third party package availability rate very highly and most other considerations much lower without good reason to consider them as primary concerns.

    Still don't know why Michaels tests showed such a big difference between Gnome and KDE.

    Just for laughs I'm running some tests on a Celeron 1.2G (PIII), 40G, and 512M just to see what I find there.

    Comment


    • (In my last post I said that it was my last post in this thread. Now it seems, I lied. But things have improved since then, a little bit.)

      Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
      It is apparently Kubuntu that is the memory hog, not KDE 4.4.1.
      I think, the main problem is the methodology of the measurement, i.e. what is in fact being measured and how.

      Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
      With a qt-based browser (Arora) and file manager (Dolphin), editor (kwrite) and console (konsole) running, it uses 350 Mbytes. This is less than GNOME. I have no idea how Phoronix and Kubuntu manged to use up as much memory as they did.
      Well, unlike you, I do know how Phoronix arrived at those numbers: the Phoronix numbers include the memory used by the disk cache. Try running phoronix-test-suite on your computer and see for yourself. So, for example if an application read some configuration data, or a PNG image, from disk during startup, then that disk data will still be in cache and gets included in the Phoronix results. Who knows how many megabytes got included like this.

      Maybe a better method would be:

      echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
      cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal\|MemFree

      But by the far best solution would be to have a special page on Phoronix dedicated to methods used in obtaining the measurements. Such as "How does Phoronix measure memory consumption? What does the resulting number include, what it doesn't, etc.". THAT is what I am missing here. While you can get a precise idea about what and how is being measured by examining the phoronix-test-suite source code, it is not a good solution for a benchmarking site.

      Message to those who are using htop: those numbers are NOT comparable to Phoronix numbers. The htop numbers do not include cache and buffers. In my (first, I think) post I clearly mentioned that those 190MB I reported for KDE 4.4.1 do NOT include cache.



      Then, there is also the problem of not having information about processes running on the computer during the benchmarking ... but let's just stop here.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
        (In my last post I said that it was my last post in this thread. Now it seems, I lied. But things have improved since then, a little bit.)
        So what exactly should we be apologising for, what is it that offends your sensibilities so heavily one wonders.

        Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
        Well, unlike you, I do know how Phoronix arrived at those numbers: the Phoronix numbers include the memory used by the disk cache.
        Well if he's mixing together the memory usage of code+content with the amount the system has decided to cache due to what has been read off the disc then that seems a little inconsistent with the stated metrics being measured.

        Comment


        • It's a pity KDE 3.5.10 hasn't been tested.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by birdie View Post
            It's a pity KDE 3.5.10 hasn't been tested.
            Does *buntu still ship a 3.5 flavor?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
              OpenSuse and Mandriva are more popular KDE distributions again than Arch, but Arch is a rolling release and is therefore more up to date and cutting edge.
              Not really, openSUSE's build server has new weekly snapshots

              http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...ABLE:/Desktop/

              and when it comes to official releases they usually have that build on the service even before the official announcement.

              http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...tory:/Desktop/

              Factory releases are now a "supported" version as well against older distribution releases.

              Comment


              • Ok, I think all of you flamers are stupid. The case is still the same, KDE uses a larger, very and easily measureable, percent more ram than gnome does on boot. Stop denying it.

                Who cares if it's Ubuntu, as far as I know, the KDE4 desktop on Kubuntu looks pretty ordinary and simple and is more relevant to a real users environment.

                In other words, I would rather measure the weight of 10 people with their pants on than off before sending them to their death in a low capacity elevator.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by damentz View Post
                  Ok, I think all of you flamers are stupid. The case is still the same, KDE uses a larger, very and easily measureable, percent more ram than gnome does on boot. Stop denying it.
                  This may be true but maybe someone could explain why the hell it should matter? KDE is designed for modern systems and the ram usage is perfectly fine on all DEs unless you run a 10 year old machine. On any sort of modern system the memory usage of any of the DEs wont matter one tiny little bit.

                  I dont get the stupid obsession of seeing what app/DE/OS uses less memory. Its 2010 and ram is cheap as hell. Its an old habit that frankly needs to die. I know it mattered way back when but any more it really dont matter at all.

                  I just dont get it, the DE with more bells and whistles uses 150 more megs of ram than the other and people actually act like this is bad when the KDE team should get a big pat on the back for making it look and work so well at ~550 megs usage.

                  Moral of my rant is that if 150 megs of ram is a big deal to you then you are stuck 10 years in the past and need to join the rest of us in the future.

                  Comment


                  • @pfunkman:
                    And even then KDE4 uses less when running a couple of apps.

                    There is a difference between storing in RAM and executing what is in the RAM.

                    Same old story with the 'bloated' Linux kernel: "OMG it's 25MB!". Yeah but what does it execute? Exactly.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by damentz View Post
                      Ok, I think all of you flamers are stupid. The case is still the same, KDE uses a larger, very and easily measureable, percent more ram than gnome does on boot. Stop denying it.

                      Surely no ones denying that KDE uses more RAM than Gnome does after boot to the desktop and starting a shell.

                      Originally posted by damentz View Post
                      Who cares if it's Ubuntu, as far as I know, the KDE4 desktop on Kubuntu looks pretty ordinary and simple and is more relevant to a real users environment.
                      It's quite relevant to consider whether it's KDE on Ubuntu or Kubuntu because of the potential for the Gnome based Ubuntu to have either additions or omissions in relation to the specific configuration of a KDE desktop on Kubuntu. Especially given that if you're going to run KDE on a *buntu, it'll likely be Kubuntu. This could have implications for RAM usage in either a positive or negative way.

                      Originally posted by damentz View Post
                      In other words, I would rather measure the weight of 10 people with their pants on than off before sending them to their death in a low capacity elevator.
                      Would you also rather send KDE to its death based on accurate or misleading metrics?

                      If we all have to go back to machines with 256M RAM then not only will people not be running KDE, they also wont be running Gnome. The lighter desktops would take the Linux world by storm.

                      Thankfully most machines are 512M or more and so we get to choose a desktop that fits out liking based on more than just its memory footprint including its utility and suitability for a given use. It may be tempting to dam a DE solely on its RAM usage if you feel your favorite one doesn't stack up in features or usability, but then that'd just be personal bias shining though in your argument more than fact.

                      Comment


                      • 5 bucks that we go over #300 with this.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by not.sure View Post
                          5 bucks that we go over #300 with this.
                          I agree because some people seems to want to use memory usage stats as a proxy for "OMG you DE sux!"

                          I think we can come to a consensus about RAM usage. That isn't the hard part. If we were to split off the undertones of "My DE is better than you DE" from this argument and into another one then that thread would also definitely go over #300.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by not.sure View Post
                            5 bucks that we go over #300 with this.
                            10 bucks or so can buy you 1GB of RAM...

                            'nuff said...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                              I agree because some people seems to want to use memory usage stats as a proxy for "OMG you DE sux!"

                              I think we can come to a consensus about RAM usage. That isn't the hard part. If we were to split off the undertones of "My DE is better than you DE" from this argument and into another one then that thread would also definitely go over #300.
                              Indeed, this thread sucks as far as flames are concerned.

                              So can we reach the conclusion that KDE is a bloated piece of dang that noone in their right mind should use? I mean, it uses somewhere between 2-150MB more RAM than whatever, so it must surely suck.

                              Not to mention they are ugly Microsoft copy-cats with their Vista-like taskbar and system tray and their Win7-like "Aero snap". I wouldn't be surprised if KDE was a thinly-veiled attempt by Microsoft to make Linux users feel more comfortable with the Vista/Win7 UI, so they can ultimately brainwash them into the kingdom of Borg. Better safe than sorry, I say.

                              (Alright, 151 posts to go!)

                              10 bucks or so can buy you 1GB of RAM...

                              'nuff said...
                              RAM prices have doubled during the last year, so every last bit counts.
                              Last edited by BlackStar; 03-11-2010, 05:31 AM. Reason: :p

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                                10 bucks or so can buy you 1GB of RAM...

                                'nuff said...
                                Prolly the best post I've read on Phoronix so far.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X