GNOME or KDE

albertaboy · 03-11-2002, 09:03 PM

just curious... How much ram will mandrake 8.1 actually make use of?? I used to get a laugh out of the win 98/ME users bragging about having 1gig or more ram. Ive just been running 256 2100ddr and have never had a problem.. Anything more seems like overkill.

AMDPwred · 03-11-2002, 10:18 PM

I only use KDE. I'd like to try Enlightnment but I don't have the dependencies and such. I need to spend some time and install those so I can give that desktop a try.

hejduk · 03-11-2002, 11:43 PM

Enlightenment kicks ass. Better than KDE or Gnome. Looks better and no clutter.

TikRu · 03-12-2002, 01:29 AM

I use mainly ximian gnome(Red Hat 7.2 466 Celeron and 128 RAM) but i have tried to use the other enviroments like xfce, fluxbox and enlightment, but i have always returned to use gnome. Because i usually can't do something basic in those enviroments. Or i'm just lazy.

Sixpax · 03-12-2002, 12:36 PM

I've tried both Gnome and KDE under several versions of Mandrake and although Gnome has some great features, KDE is my preference. With today's hardware, speed isn't at all a factor, and that excuse is just a cop-out. I seriously doubt those of you with the systems you describe are having any performance problems with your window manager. If you are, it's time to buy some real equipment

I even have Linux running on a P2 400MHz at work and I seldom notice any slowness with my window manager.

The reason I like KDE better is it's less cumbersome than Gnome to customize, even simple things like putting icons on your desktop. That's not to say you can't customize Gnome, but it's more of a pain than KDE. Also, KDE seems to have more apps integrated into it than Gnome (thus the ppl who use Gnome WITH KDE apps... why not just use KDE?). IMO Gnome has about half of the apps integrated into it that KDE does.

You can pretty much make your desktop look anyway you want under either, so that's a moot point (more gloomy?!? huh?). I even used one of the Eterm backgrounds as my wallpaper.

neo77777 · 03-12-2002, 01:43 PM

I've tried many of them. When I started linuxing (about four years ago)I had KDE, then moved to GNOME, then I had a second comp (very slow machine) and used WM and blackbox on it, now with my power rig I have two favs - AfterStep and Enlightenment, and I am anxious to wait till E 0.17 comes out.

therion12 · 03-12-2002, 08:47 PM

I use fluxbox.

SlCKB0Y · 03-13-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stingreen
I use neither of them. cause they both suck.(really)

You're too good for KDE and Gnome and make an unsubstantiated comment like that: and you use Redhat 7.1?!?!?!

WAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SlCKB0Y · 03-13-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shadowhacker
Therion..

Windows 95, 98 and ME do not make use of any RAM above 512, but NT, 2K, and XP can.

As far as whether you will see a big performance increase with 768 instead of 512... probably not, unless you are really pushing your system.

The main reason for this is that KDE and GNOME are not very well threaded, nor do they load what they can into RAM if it is available. As a result, even if you put 1.5GB in there, KDE and GNOME will not make good use of it, and when under heavy load, they will be slow to respond. Hopefully, the developers of these fine desktops will correct this problem.

Now my system... yes, I like speed. I'm an impatient girl, and hate waiting for anything on computers. When I say I want something done, I wanted it yesterday. With this setup I have now, I find that my only real slow-up is my hard drive access. And flash disks are way to expensive right now. But rest assured, when I win the lottery, become independantly wealthy, or the drive price drops, I will get a few.

(mmmmm, 0.24 second disk access times)

Sorry, maybe im stupid but i thought that the process of memory management was handled by the linux kernel and had NOTHING to do with the application. Sure the application can have certain characteristics which may assist (threading), but thats about it?

And NT wont make good use of memory above 512. NT's efficiency starts to level out after about 384-512, whereas XP will keep on increasing linearly to 512mb and beyond.

SlCKB0Y · 03-13-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shadowhacker
Well now heres a few questions...

I can say I like the look of KDE, but not the speed. So could one make a "theme" on Windows Maker that makes it look like KDE, and if so, would it slow down like KDE or be fast?

And second, why is it some windows managers run faster than others, when there is not much difference in their functionality? Are some more multi-threaded, or just use alot less code?

Basically its eyecandy which slows things down. plus the application sizes and the number of processes started by each DE/WM.

Stephanie · 03-13-2002, 09:36 AM

SICKBOY wrote:

Quote:

Sorry, maybe im stupid but i thought that the process of memory management was handled by the linux kernel and had NOTHING to do with the application

Yes and no. The kernel allocates an applications CPU usage time, but if an application is not multi-threaded well, then it will consume more CPU time because large chunks of code need to be worked each time the kernel gives it CPU access. This will cause an overall slow-down in system response.

A great example of how good multi-threading an app is BeOS. I dont know if you have played with it, but it is very fast, and I have had my CPU maxed out on one app, but I am still able to watch multiple movies and do searches on the hard drive with little performance drop. This is simply because the apps are designed to give the CPU smaller chucks of info to byte than large ones.

But like I said, hard disk performance leaves much to be desired.