Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

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

  • jumico
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Thats a wrong interpretation. First of all RAM has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is going to be quicker to work with a smaller amount of RAM than a larger amount. Period. Second RAM is for applications to use. What exactly is the point in having OS components consume large amounts of RAM for when in reality all it does is take longer to work with and removes it from use by applications?
    If applications use less memory, more memory can be used for disk caching.
    Thank you. I need a thanks button like on xda.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't those libraries only be used when an application is running that needs them? So there'd be no memory penalty the rest of the time.
    You're right.

    I have a low-end system running Razor-qt. It has some programs that rely on KDE libraries (either because I need those programs in particular, or because there are no direct Qt versions of the programs that provide the needed functionality). It's using Mageia right now, and it has two web browsers installed: Arora and rekonq. Arora starts up fast, but the browsing performance is abysmal. And rekonq, while being a KDE program, takes a while to start (has to load all the KDE libraries), but it's actually quite snappy. Same with other KDE programs, they take a while to start. But if you don't auto-load them, it's Razor-qt as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • Akka
    replied
    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.
    Pretty sure this list more or less data gibberish.
    Why don't measure how much memory respective desktopshell and windowmanager use instead? Measuring some sort of default installation with arbitrary bloat the actual dist choose to include is kinda strange.
    Last edited by Akka; 07-02-2013, 03:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JS987
    replied
    Originally posted by jumico View Post
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.
    If applications use less memory, more memory can be used for disk caching.

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    Of course, but why would you install KDevelop if you are not going to use it? I thought it was implicit that it wasn't shared between KDevelop and something else when running it. About the weight, I don't know, since I don't use anything from the KDE side (I do use some Qt apps, but the ones I use do not depend on anything from the KDE camp), I just know that as long as they are used only by an app, those libs are kind of a waste of resources. How much, of course, depends on how big the libs are. Of course, using it or not is a choice. As I already said, that's why one can not say it eliminates competition. The user is still able to choose whatever fits him. I wouldn't refrain from using a KDE program if the ones most compatible with my desktop of choice don't satisfy me either, but I've got pretty simple requirements and almost any software can achieve them :P
    The point was, the memory usage would only rise at those times when I'd be using the application, and unless it's an application that I'd have to use with multiple other applications, or one that I'd have to use all the time, I don't see the memory usage as much of a problem. I mean, Firefox can use over a GB of RAM, depending on the amount of tabs open... compared to that, the KDE libs are piecemeal.

    I was mostly making the point that installing software on your computer that uses different libs/toolkits than your DE doesn't cause any harm per se. The disk space needed for the extra libs is neglicible, and when it comes to memory usage, well... that's just another factor you need to evaluate when you consider which software suits your purpose best. There's always a tradeoff, it just depends what quality you value the most - low memory usage, functionality, ease of use, speed, stability, etc...

    The thing with Mir and interoperability, I *think* it's more LightDM's fault than anything else's. As I see it, LightDM, which does a pretty basic use of display in general, could start as a DRI only app and then open the correct display server for the desktop you choose to use. But maybe there are technical impediments for that idea that I'm not able to see.
    I was thinking more of the application side. When we get to applications that don't usually use GUI toolkits, such as games (especially ones ported from other OS's), at least some of them are going to want to talk to the display server directly - not all will want to use SDL. Without Mir, Wayland would have been a no-brainer choice for them, at least somewhere down the line. Now, they have to decide between Mir, Wayland or - more likely - just using the lowest common denominator, X.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by jumico View Post
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.
    Thats a wrong interpretation. First of all RAM has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is going to be quicker to work with a smaller amount of RAM than a larger amount. Period. Second RAM is for applications to use. What exactly is the point in having OS components consume large amounts of RAM for when in reality all it does is take longer to work with and removes it from use by applications?

    Leave a comment:


  • jumico
    replied
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    I mean, won't the libs only be taking up memory when some program is using them, ie. when you're running a program that needs those libs? And the rest of the time, when you're not using that program, the libs won't be taking up memory... what I'm saying is, that the additional memory usage is only when the application is in use, it won't affect the memory usage of the rest of your system.

    Besides, the KDE libs don't seem to use all that much memory. When I start up Krita, it only takes up about 160-180 MiB of memory (although granted, I don't know how many of the KDE libs it uses). And unless you're using some really old, pre-DDR1 hardware, you're likely to have at least 2GB RAM, seeing as RAM is pretty cheap these days, so I don't really see the memory usage much of a concern. (And if you have pre-DDR1 hardware, you'll probably want to use something more lightweight than most KDE-based apps, anyway...)

    I guess it'd be nice if we'd have this one universal toolkit library that would be suitable for the purposes of every possible application, on every possible hardware, to the extent that we'd never need any other toolkits... and as long as we're making wishes, I'd like to win the lottery, too

    But in the meanwhile, I'm not going to refrain from using an application because it happens to use different libraries than most of the stuff on my computer. We've got this great system in place where we can have different desktops, with their different software collections, yet we can still run any apps in any DE - it's kind of cool. And it's also why Mir is such a horrible idea, because it threatens to break this system of interoperability.
    Of course, but why would you install KDevelop if you are not going to use it? I thought it was implicit that it wasn't shared between KDevelop and something else when running it. About the weight, I don't know, since I don't use anything from the KDE side (I do use some Qt apps, but the ones I use do not depend on anything from the KDE camp), I just know that as long as they are used only by an app, those libs are kind of a waste of resources. How much, of course, depends on how big the libs are. Of course, using it or not is a choice. As I already said, that's why one can not say it eliminates competition. The user is still able to choose whatever fits him. I wouldn't refrain from using a KDE program if the ones most compatible with my desktop of choice don't satisfy me either, but I've got pretty simple requirements and almost any software can achieve them :P

    The thing with Mir and interoperability, I *think* it's more LightDM's fault than anything else's. As I see it, LightDM, which does a pretty basic use of display in general, could start as a DRI only app and then open the correct display server for the desktop you choose to use. But maybe there are technical impediments for that idea that I'm not able to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    Well, there are two options, when a program drags them behind it: either, packagers are total jerks, and make you install libraries the program won't use, just for the sake of taking space, or the program does use them, and that's why they are dependencies. I tend to incline for the latter possibility.
    I mean, won't the libs only be taking up memory when some program is using them, ie. when you're running a program that needs those libs? And the rest of the time, when you're not using that program, the libs won't be taking up memory... what I'm saying is, that the additional memory usage is only when the application is in use, it won't affect the memory usage of the rest of your system.

    Besides, the KDE libs don't seem to use all that much memory. When I start up Krita, it only takes up about 160-180 MiB of memory (although granted, I don't know how many of the KDE libs it uses). And unless you're using some really old, pre-DDR1 hardware, you're likely to have at least 2GB RAM, seeing as RAM is pretty cheap these days, so I don't really see the memory usage much of a concern. (And if you have pre-DDR1 hardware, you'll probably want to use something more lightweight than most KDE-based apps, anyway...)

    I guess it'd be nice if we'd have this one universal toolkit library that would be suitable for the purposes of every possible application, on every possible hardware, to the extent that we'd never need any other toolkits... and as long as we're making wishes, I'd like to win the lottery, too

    But in the meanwhile, I'm not going to refrain from using an application because it happens to use different libraries than most of the stuff on my computer. We've got this great system in place where we can have different desktops, with their different software collections, yet we can still run any apps in any DE - it's kind of cool. And it's also why Mir is such a horrible idea, because it threatens to break this system of interoperability.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't those libraries only be used when an application is running that needs them? So there'd be no memory penalty the rest of the time.
    Well, there are two options, when a program drags them behind it: either, packagers are total jerks, and make you install libraries the program won't use, just for the sake of taking space, or the program does use them, and that's why they are dependencies. I tend to incline for the latter possibility.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X