Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Unity Proves Very Slow To KDE, GNOME, Xfce, LXDE

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

  • Artemis3
    replied
    Originally posted by simongaiteiro View Post
    I wouldn't call that "to tweak KDE". You only need to check an option in system configuration.
    Its the same with XFCE (a check box to turn on/off compositor). Only the gnome developers would think of the absurd...

    Leave a comment:


  • Artemis3
    replied
    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    Actually, Xfce has a fully supported and configurable compositor, it is just not on by default. On 4.8 it can be toggled from the "Window Manager Tweaks" settings option under the "Compositor" tab. From there you can also tweak the compositor effects and also specifically set the compositor to "Display fullscreen overlay windows directly". Considering you took the time to tweak KDE for this benchmark, I would appreciate it if you would also do the same for Xfce in future tests.
    No, the compositor is turned on by default in Xubuntu, which is why the benchmarks show lower FPS with XFCE than LXDE. Perhaps testing with both compositor on and off should clarify this. I rather use my desktop with the compositor off, the menu shadows and transparency of objects are not worth the tearing in videos and fewer FPS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artemis3
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
    And so .. Was anyone saying KDE is heavy and slow and that XFCE is better for performance/gaming etc?
    Do the benchmarks with a window instead of fullscreen, and the truth will come out. I often play rpg games windowed, as the need to browse documentation online comes very often. Also, the time KDE takes to boot is absurd, even worse than gnome3, which in itself is quite unbearable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artemis3
    replied
    XFCE compositor can be turned off

    If you turn off the compositor, XFCE will match the speeds of KDE suspend and LXDE.


    Now i would like to see true desktop usage benchmarks. Time to boot, time to open the file browser, time to open a default app (libreoffice?), memory usage, power usage, fps on the desktop itself, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    More like someone else saying that the headlines are wrongly made. Which is a fair point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ofen
    replied
    Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
    Hey Michael heres idea for your next article

    “Look, someone else says my benchmarks are wrongly made”.

    Source:
    http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blo...ce-benchmarks/
    lol, shitstorm incoming

    Leave a comment:


  • Ramiliez
    replied
    Hey Michael heres idea for your next article

    “Look, someone else says my benchmarks are wrongly made”.
    Source:
    http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blo...ce-benchmarks/

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by gcala View Post
    Sane remarks, but his points are valid for most benchmarks. Rarely will you see a piece of software benchmarked across several operating systems, CPU, etc. You can't realistically vary every single factor, so reviewers usually pick a few that (in their eyes) are the most important. Yet people will either generalize those results if they are inline with their views or dismiss the results as flawed if they contradict the same views.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomBoyTom
    replied
    Please test Pantheon Shell and Cinnamon

    I like to see results with these two youngest WM

    Leave a comment:


  • gcala
    replied
    an aswer from kde developer:

    http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blo...ce-benchmarks/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X