Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

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

  • Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

    Phoronix: Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

    Xfce 4.12 still hasn't been released yet and it's running months behind schedule. Xfce 4.12 will be a major update to the lightweight desktop that's becoming an increasingly used alternative to Unity and the GNOME Shell. Here's an update on some of the completed features...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5OTA

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

    Xfce 4.12 still hasn't been released yet and it's running months behind schedule. Xfce 4.12 will be a major update to the lightweight desktop that's becoming an increasingly used alternative to Unity and the GNOME Shell. Here's an update on some of the completed features...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5OTA
    I have been using most of those features already for months by using a PPA and they are pretty stable, they make XFCE a lot more usable. I guess that XFCE developers are somehow perfectionist for not releasing already.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have fallen in love with Xfce after using Manjaro Xfce for a while. Xfce has to be my second favourite desktop environment, right after KDE. It's only going to get better!

      Comment


      • #4
        .icc profiles support would be nice

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheOne View Post
          I have been using most of those features already for months by using a PPA and they are pretty stable, they make XFCE a lot more usable. I guess that XFCE developers are somehow perfectionist for not releasing already.
          I used to build git in a weekly basis, I even had a few scripts to do so. Then I switched computer and laziness won, so I'm using whatever version ships in Xubuntu.

          Comment


          • #6
            XFCE is a fantastic desktop environment for hardware-outdated systems! It consumes just 130-150mb of RAM on x32 versions and its GPU requirements are very basic.

            Of course visual experience is basic too, so on a modern system Unity is more reasonable choice.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by verde View Post
              XFCE is a fantastic desktop environment for hardware-outdated systems! It consumes just 130-150mb of RAM on x32 versions and its GPU requirements are very basic.

              Of course visual experience is basic too, so on a modern system Unity is more reasonable choice.
              XFCE is ok P4 but any older than that, LXDE is a better choice. XFCE has a noticeable performance hit compared to LXDE on crappier hardware.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by verde View Post
                XFCE is a fantastic desktop environment for hardware-outdated systems! It consumes just 130-150mb of RAM on x32 versions and its GPU requirements are very basic.
                Someone tested memory usage of basic desktop installs:


                I use Xubuntu but switched the desktop to E17, and the memory used went down from 150ish mb down to about 50 mb; looks better AND has more features than KDE, which is a memory hog and takes ages to load, comparable to Unity and Gnome 3 of course.

                But aside from E17 which might look intimidating for having so much customization (like KDE), XFCE, and LXDE are very good. For true old machines, you might go with IceWM or similar.

                The base system also helps. Instead of Xubuntu, try ubuntu minimal, (pick option command line only) then just the apt-get the package xfce4. Or switch distro if you don't care about Canonical repositories. I'm hoping for Bodhi Linux to improve, but they need to fix PXE install using their ISO. You might also try the Linux Mint flavors.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Artemis3 View Post
                  Someone tested memory usage of basic desktop installs:


                  I use Xubuntu but switched the desktop to E17, and the memory used went down from 150ish mb down to about 50 mb; looks better AND has more features than KDE, which is a memory hog and takes ages to load, comparable to Unity and Gnome 3 of course.

                  But aside from E17 which might look intimidating for having so much customization (like KDE), XFCE, and LXDE are very good. For true old machines, you might go with IceWM or similar.

                  The base system also helps. Instead of Xubuntu, try ubuntu minimal, (pick option command line only) then just the apt-get the package xfce4. Or switch distro if you don't care about Canonical repositories. I'm hoping for Bodhi Linux to improve, but they need to fix PXE install using their ISO. You might also try the Linux Mint flavors.
                  cant wait for E17 to be on Wayland to test it

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Artemis3 View Post
                    ...
                    Cinnamon having only a bit more than XFCE?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Artemis3 View Post
                      The base system also helps. Instead of Xubuntu, try ubuntu minimal, (pick option command line only) then just the apt-get the package xfce4. Or switch distro if you don't care about Canonical repositories. I'm hoping for Bodhi Linux to improve, but they need to fix PXE install using their ISO. You might also try the Linux Mint flavors.
                      Agreed on installing Xfce rather than xubuntu-desktop-task or whatever. You will miss a few things - WiFi manager, volume slider etc but those can be installed later. I wish every desktop had a minimal install option. IMHO one of the great mistakes of the Linux desktop was the belief that every desktop had to have its own suite of applications. Notepad, calculator, text editor, web browser, email client, media player, search system, IM client, package manager, office apps, graphical editors, etc. KDE even developed its own IDE!

                      We would've been much better off if desktops had stuck to being thin, fast, optimised ui bases for running common software, instead of trying to build these massive cathedrals.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by chrisb View Post
                        Agreed on installing Xfce rather than xubuntu-desktop-task or whatever. You will miss a few things - WiFi manager, volume slider etc but those can be installed later. I wish every desktop had a minimal install option. IMHO one of the great mistakes of the Linux desktop was the belief that every desktop had to have its own suite of applications. Notepad, calculator, text editor, web browser, email client, media player, search system, IM client, package manager, office apps, graphical editors, etc. KDE even developed its own IDE!

                        We would've been much better off if desktops had stuck to being thin, fast, optimised ui bases for running common software, instead of trying to build these massive cathedrals.
                        Having those applications what is the very definition of a desktop environment. If you don't want to use something like that just use a simple WM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
                          Cinnamon having only a bit more than XFCE?

                          Might not be quite as low as in the chart, but it definitely fits in the spot between XFCE and Razor-Qt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                            Having those applications what is the very definition of a desktop environment. If you don't want to use something like that just use a simple WM.
                            Yes but the apps don't need to be part of the desktop project - they can be third party apps with the overall end user desktop environment potentially put together by someone else (as the reality is with distributions today). It is very telling that the most popular apps (chromium, Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, mplayer, vnc, open libre office) aren't part of a specific desktop, whereas their counterparts (gnome office, koffice, epiphany, konqueror, kmail, evolution, kCalendar etc) became less popular. Why did we need to have desktop specific web browsers and office suites? What good did it ever do us? As if writing all this software wasn't enough work already, we had to do it for every desktop.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Artemis3 View Post
                              Someone tested memory usage of basic desktop installs:


                              I use Xubuntu but switched the desktop to E17, and the memory used went down from 150ish mb down to about 50 mb; looks better AND has more features than KDE, which is a memory hog and takes ages to load, comparable to Unity and Gnome 3 of course.

                              But aside from E17 which might look intimidating for having so much customization (like KDE), XFCE, and LXDE are very good. For true old machines, you might go with IceWM or similar.

                              The base system also helps. Instead of Xubuntu, try ubuntu minimal, (pick option command line only) then just the apt-get the package xfce4. Or switch distro if you don't care about Canonical repositories. I'm hoping for Bodhi Linux to improve, but they need to fix PXE install using their ISO. You might also try the Linux Mint flavors.
                              I've seen that chart before and as I recall, the person who put it together did not provide much background information other than that those were just the default installs from the distro he / she was using, and did not specify what distro it was. I would be very curious to see just what is included in those default installs, and in the default session launcher configurations, by his / her distro's packagers.

                              Pound-for-pound comparisons of components make sense (for example, file manager vs file manager, wm vs wm, and so on). As it is, comparing such "DEs" is too much apples and oranges, and this is only made harder when we don't even know what the default installs and sessions include.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X