Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, etc -

If none of the more specific forums is the right place to ask

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby Kenshin Himura » 2019-12-28 18:35

So what do you suggest?
Kenshin Himura
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 2019-11-15 21:14

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby Hallvor » 2019-12-28 18:47

Kenshin Himura wrote:So what do you suggest?


Try them out. 8)
Lenovo ThinkPad T440S, Intel Core i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD, Debian Buster (KDE)
Lenovo ThinkPad X240, Intel Core i5-4300U CPU @ 2.90GHz, 8 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD, Debian Buster (KDE)
User avatar
Hallvor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: 2009-04-16 18:35
Location: Norway

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby oswaldkelso » 2019-12-29 01:10

Most of my icewm installs run around 60MB to boot to the desktop some can run to 100MB depending on the graphics card support. They run the same across most distros be them Debian based, Arch based and all others I've tried. I say that as I just copy my .icewm directory across and they just work. That said I've not tried every distro on the planet.

localization can be added as a simple text file to the menu. I think I have 9 main ones with 6 different keyboard types by default. No lack of features for me and 24 options in the base menu. Having no compositor is neither here nor there. It's a simple command away should one need one. Icewm is a window manager not a DE after all. While the default UI is dated (so light and fast) it's also very flexible and very easy to change appearance, mine looks rather sexy even if I say so myself... I would though wouldn't I . As of the 1.62 versions there is no need to do much text editing as the preference settings are configurable via the menu. A feature I dislike so switch off by editing the text file. Anyone that has looked at the preferences file will understand only a small change can totally screw the interface and for once I agree with the Gnome devs about hiding away to powerful features from noobies.

Text files ftw IMO :mrgreen:

If you really want to tweek it for an old system see this thread and learn Hungarian 8.5MB to the desktop pissed all over my 25MB but the concept is sound :-)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129223&

My TDE install runs under 190MB. Alot of bang for you buck if you want an actual DE.

edit: Just checked: My old Dragora2 install shows 66MB, my Dragora3 install shows 52MB my hyperbola3 install shows 63MB all with ps_mem. My Debian install was higher but probably dragged in a load of baggage from other stuff like Gnome so not a fair comparison
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
User avatar
oswaldkelso
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby Hallvor » 2019-12-29 09:08

Most of my icewm installs run around 60MB to boot to the desktop some can run to 100MB depending on the graphics card support.


As long as you like to stare at your empty desktop, that sounds perfect. If you actually try to run something, you will probably see that even a desktop environment like TDE will use less RAM for each application you start. The reason is that TDE will use more shared memory.

viewtopic.php?t=127436&start=0#p609906

localization can be added as a simple text file to the menu.


When I wrote lack of localization, I did not imply that it was impossible to localize. It should be relatively easy given the low level of complexity. What I meant was that if you want a small language, you may have to translate everything yourself... I use Norwegian (nynorsk) myself, and finding good translations is not common outside the biggest desktop environments with many users.

While the default UI is dated (so light and fast) it's also very flexible and very easy to change appearance, mine looks rather sexy even if I say so myself...


Yes, changing appearances in IceWM is probably the easiest of all I have ever tried. I could never make it look good, though, but that might have been operator error (or that we have different taste).
Anyone that has looked at the preferences file will understand only a small change can totally screw the interface and for once I agree with the Gnome devs about hiding away to powerful features from noobies.


Completely disagree with the "users are so stupid and irresponsible, let's hide stuff from them"-attitude. If you never are given the opportunity to screw up, you'll never become a responsible adult. Screwing up has given me some painful and lasting learning experiences, both in Debian and in real life. :lol:
Lenovo ThinkPad T440S, Intel Core i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD, Debian Buster (KDE)
Lenovo ThinkPad X240, Intel Core i5-4300U CPU @ 2.90GHz, 8 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD, Debian Buster (KDE)
User avatar
Hallvor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: 2009-04-16 18:35
Location: Norway

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby oswaldkelso » 2019-12-29 14:44

viewtopic.php?t=127436&start=0#p609906

I'm familiar with that thread and it makes some valid points but non are relevant to me. I run certain applications no matter what else is available though agree for some it makes much sense.

I don't stare at an empty desktop even though on some machines I run with a grey background :-) I look at my workspaces to see what's running and where, my cpu and network to make sure bigger applications are loading and none are still running in the background etc.

Where I do run with a pretty desktop like on my plasma screened machine. I have a wallpaper script that cycles over 200 wallpapers changing them every 30 seconds. I do this is because plasma screens suffer from burn-in. I also run with most windows maximized or tiled so the only time I see the desktop is when switching to a new workspace or closing all windows.

Re the removing the preferences from the menu. I will admit I thought long and hard about that one :-) But in the end felt it better to get the users to read my commented preferences file that explained why the settings were set so they would know the consequence of changing it first. In effect making them RTFM.

One of the joys of the DE/WM diversity in Gnu/Linux is we can for the most part run what we want, how we want to. I'm sure we can all celebrate that.
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
User avatar
oswaldkelso
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby Wheelerof4te » 2019-12-29 16:01

DEs are nowadays only a matter of personal choice. Any modern* laptop or desktop computer can run both GNOME and KDE with ease. Your workload is what matters more. Do you use your computer for gaming? Get a high-end rig. If all you do is Facebook/Instagram and office work, cheap laptops at your nearest BestBuy or Wallmart equivalent will be enough.

People who use 10-15 old year old computers and complain when now there are much more powerful very cheap ones are...curious to me.

* Modern as in 5-8 years old.
Wheelerof4te
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Comparison between DEs - Power Efficiency, Ram Usage, et

Postby CwF » 2019-12-29 16:47

Wheelerof4te wrote:* Modern as in 5-8 years old.

Exactly right.
At some point it just doesn't matter...
Code: Select all
$  free -m
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:          32208       21880         449         890        9877        8977
Swap:          7811        1055        6756
$  uptime
 10:25:42 up 65 days, 19:30,  3 users,  load average: 1.42, 1.39, 1.51
CwF
 
Posts: 774
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16

Previous

Return to General Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

fashionable