Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by ChemicalBrother View Post
    So, I'm using Arch Linux + KDEmod (Chakra Linux). KDE 4.4.1 on my EEEPC 1000H and htop says: 221 MB RAM usage.

    This is such a big difference to the phoronix results... I don't get it.
    So, I'm using Arch Linux + Gnome (vanilla Arch). Gnome 2.28 on my VirtualBox 3.1.4 and htop says: 141 MB RAM usage.

    This is such a big difference to the phoronix results. I don't get it.

    No wait, I do. Different programs, different services, different kernel, (probably) different compilers, (maybe) different themes / WM plugins. Doesn't really make sense to compare results between distros, as the noise between distro differences swallows any actual differences in memory usage.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      Gnome supposed to have the 'awesome' clearlooks theme that beats every theme in usability, yet they forgot the usablility of shades of grey mixed with other collors... It's truly sad for Gnome that KDE SC 4.4.2's theme is now 'more usable' than Gnome's. So I installed Gnome-do for the docky, changed the upper menu bar thing to gray and made it transparent, put a KDE4 wallpaper (in Gnome you can't set the shade of the color of the wallpaper to gray for example because Gnome doesn't implement features that people like to have) in place and changed the blue to light gray-ish blue and finally my eyes agreed to the look of my desktop:
      http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/351/screenshotue.png
      Ugh, please do something about that butt-ugly icon theme. Humanity is beautiful, as is gnome-colors and (to a lesser extent) glass.

      Clearlooks tries to be a neutral theme, try New Wave for something more modern and sleek.

      Personally, I don't believe anyone says that Gnome looks good out of-the-box (apart from diehard Debian fans, maybe). Fortunately, it's pretty easy to make it look good, even if the distro doesn't come with any good themes (Ubuntu, for example, does).

      Personally, I'd love to see the Gnome devs become slightly more aggressive with UI design for Gnome 3. And judging from some recent posts on planet-gnome, maybe they will, maybe they will.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        Because running sysctl to change the swappiness will not affect the stuff already swapped out.
        I think you could do "swapoff -a ; swapon -a" to correct that. Though that may involve closing some running applications - but it is still way faster than a full reboot and restart of all applications.

        Note: Since it seems some stupid people are posting vulgar stuff here, this is my last post in this forum thread. Bye.

        Comment


        • #94
          Thanks for you FUD Phoronix:

          http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...og-949634.html

          No brainers everywhere.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            So, I'm using Arch Linux + Gnome (vanilla Arch). Gnome 2.28 on my VirtualBox 3.1.4 and htop says: 141 MB RAM usage.

            This is such a big difference to the phoronix results. I don't get it.

            No wait, I do. Different programs, different services, different kernel, (probably) different compilers, (maybe) different themes / WM plugins. Doesn't really make sense to compare results between distros, as the noise between distro differences swallows any actual differences in memory usage.
            Well, that's over 300MB RAM difference, isn't it? Do you really think, that using different versions in Ubuntu (compared to Arch Linux) make that huge difference? More than twice the usage?

            I'm questioning Phoronix' test results, not (K)Ubuntu.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ChemicalBrother View Post
              Well, that's over 300MB RAM difference, isn't it? Do you really think, that using different versions in Ubuntu (compared to Arch Linux) make that huge difference? More than twice the usage?

              I'm questioning Phoronix' test results, not (K)Ubuntu.
              Yes and yes. These results are consistent with my own testing and with Ubuntu's official requirements (384MB RAM).

              I have an old 192MB laptop that can run Arch just fine (for some definition of "fine"), but cannot boot Ubuntu at all. I know, I've tried - gave up after 10 minutes.

              Comment


              • #97
                Gnome,KDE,Xfce,Lxde

                Can't we all agree that linux doesn't eat much memory ? It may take a bit more than XP but is hell of a lot more usable (if you got proper tools instaled and not a bare bones system ).

                For me i had to tweak my KDE installation as i am using a netbook right now and i can say one thing, memory is no problem at all on an Atom N270, the problem is a crappy CPU. Just after a start my KDE eats 89MB of memory (no idea but Intel i915 eats another 140MB which is not visible to system at all) so i am basically left with 8 hundred and something memory which is not a problem at all but the CPU (though i can play 720p movies with no hickups depending on movie.

                The whole what eats how much memory is pointless. Every other distributions uses other use flags and the truth is that if someons knows how and wants to tweak the system then they can make it eat next to nothing (though X server is a fat cow )

                So the end point is that every DE can be as memory light as possible if we can make it like that. At least using linux we can tweak and make it light and the Other OS doesn't give us this freedom.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Thanks for you FUD Phoronix:

                  http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...og-949634.html

                  No brainers everywhere.
                  that's not phoronix's fault. that article seems a bit more biased/gossipy than what we read here.

                  beside that, michael likes to test out of the box performance and figures for popular distributions. not alot of people like to build their own distro with vanilla packages. also, phoronix is free guys. chill out.

                  if i'm given a free deluxe cheeseburger that had waaaaaay too much mayonnaise, i would not take it back to mcdonalds and throw them a bitchfit.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Change the title

                    ..And the problem solved.

                    Yep, as somebody suggested, it must be:
                    DE (GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce) Power & Memory Usage on *buntu.

                    The title is so wrong, that seems try to state that Ubuntu == Linux. Regarding your readers, Micheal, majority ARE advanced linux user. And that logic (the title) doesn't seem like, well, logic.

                    Except that, majority of phoronix-ers are beginners. Then you can use that title.

                    @Hax0r:
                    Linux != windows. Do try to learn about linux first before posting comments, ok?

                    Comment


                    • Remember all, the intent of any standardized testing is to take a system and change the minimal number of variables.

                      In this case it is Ubuntu with the DE/WM variable changing.

                      If Ubuntu has a poor installation of KDE or whatever, then that doesn't invalidate the test. Those that care need to work with KDE and the Kubuntu folks to improve what needs to be improved.

                      Note however, that those making assertions about Arch does KDE better, etc, etc. Why not run some tests swapping over the desktop environments and report back the quartet of DE/WMs for your favourite distribution.

                      If the ordering of the results vary widely, there is something to look into regarding the distro's packaging. But if the ordering is the same the actual numbers aren't entirely relevant.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X