Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • BlackStar
    replied
    Respekt!

    The k is intentional.

    Leave a comment:


  • yotambien
    replied
    THE FIVE STAGES OF BENCHMARK LOSS

    Stage 1: SHOCK

    The first reaction when you see an article, scanning down to see your competition wipe the floor with you.
    Typical postings: 'WTF', 'no way', 'you lie'...


    Originally posted by Adarion
    What the f.?
    Originally posted by energyman
    [...] the whole thing is complete bull.
    Originally posted by KAMIKAZOW
    What's that bulls* battery usage test? Do those numbers [...] even mean anything [...]. If you feel the need to benchmark Linux DEs, at least do it in an objective and transparent way...
    Originally posted by aavci
    DO NOT USE UBUNTU TO BENCHMARK MEMORY.
    Originally posted by SkyHiRider
    [...]who knows what garbage does Canonical bundle with both the desktops.
    Originally posted by kraftman
    Thanks for your FUD, Phoronix
    Stage 2: DENIAL

    Shock moves to denial very quickly (usually the 2nd sentence in a posting on a benchmark loss). Comments are usually baseless attacks without any analysis or technical basis. Key words: obviously, clearly...

    Originally posted by Jimmy
    It's well known that Kubuntu provides the worst KDE experience. I'm sorry but anything from Kubuntu is not a fair test.
    Originally posted by BenderRodriguez
    Something's wrong with your setup mate. My Gentoo KD...
    Originally posted by zoomblab
    Something is wrong with these memory results
    Originally posted by kraftman
    This comparison is misleading: (link)
    Originally posted by poofyyoda
    Heh, on my laptop with KDE 4.3 the battery gets about an extra half hour of life [...] compared to Gnome (with compiz)
    Originally posted by <<atomic dude>>
    Seriously flawed.
    Stage 3: DISCREDITATION

    We're geeks, so we look for a technical reason for the loss. Typical postings: 'we lost because of debug symbols', 'they left the default config', obviously the problem is in other component', 'they don't know how to test'. Most don't leave this stage.

    Originally posted by migizi
    You need to rethink these tests. The only true way to know how the DE performs is to do a vanilla install.
    Originally posted by KAMIKAZOW
    Not that everyone already knows that KDE SC components are highly integrated and after startup [...] . In the end it roughly levels out among all of them. [...] I assume that Ubuntu's KDE SC runs the Python-based printer-applet which on its own eat 20 Mb.
    Originally posted by NeoBrain
    I was just wondering whether we can actually trust the results of the KDE 4 memory usage; I'm not sure how polished Ubuntu...
    Originally posted by <<atomic dude>>
    I think, the main problem is the methodology of the measurement.
    Stage 4: ANALYSIS

    Facts are checked, issues and underlying causes are understood.

    Originally posted by Elv13
    KDE so some caching (I don't know what the settings are in Kubuntu, but it's probably enabled).
    Originally posted by energyman
    Don't forget that KDE also provides a lot more features out of the box. Or does XFCE or Gnome have Nepomuk enabled?
    Originally posted by V!NCENT
    Kwin has also more plugins and effects than Compix and what effects are enabled and installed also makes a difference...
    Originally posted by bash
    [...] if GNOME had higher memory usage compared to KDE, most people would have come and said how this proves once and again why GNOME fails for some many reasons.
    Originally posted by mugginz
    Some numbers for your consideration: [...] Clearly Gnome in Alpha 3 has a better memory footprint than KDE no matter whatever KDE is sitting on Ubuntu or Kubuntu. There is considerable fluctuation between boots. This could be due to various reasons.


    Stage 5: ACCEPTANCE

    If you stay the course and make it through the analysis, you ultimately accept the result. The reason for the loss is internalized and implemented upstream.

    Originally posted by <<atomic dude>>
    The sad truth is that many desktop applications are using too much memory these days. KDE uses QT. The memory usage of KDE may be mainly caused by the fact that it uses QT.
    Originally posted by wazyk
    OK, KDE uses more memory than other DEs.
    Originally posted by BlackStar
    Pretty good resulst, I think.
    Originally posted by V!incent
    Results are as expected...And they don't mean anything
    Originally posted by karl
    [...] results are as expected.
    Originally posted by BenderRodriguez
    The whole what eats how much memory is pointless.
    Originally posted by aavci
    I don't think anybody is saying that KDE uses less memory than GNOME or whatever.
    Originally posted by susikala
    KDE is crap, don't use it. These tests show it clearly.
    Originally posted by V!INCENT
    I have 8Gb of RAM. What KDE puts in my RAM I don't care about.
    Originally posted by BenderRodriguez
    No one here argues if KDE uses more memory than Gnome because it's clear I think it uses a bit more.
    Originally posted by SkyHiRider
    I'd say memory is not an issue today.
    Originally posted by damentz
    All you flamers are stupid.
    Originally posted by pfunkman
    RAM is cheap as hell.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    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, 06:31 AM. Reason: :p

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • not.sure
    replied
    5 bucks that we go over #300 with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    @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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pfunkman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X