[ale] Linux desktop inefficiencies...

[Christopher Fowler]

Yea,

put it here: http://www.wabe.org/

You will not get you $150 back but you'll be supporting some excellent
programming.

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:22, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> It's really not quite as bad as you think. Most of those apps store some
> history that gets dropped out when it's no longer needed (or another app
> calls for RAM). GWeather seems to store all the data of its updates
> until you kill -9 it and it asks to restart. 
> 
> Responsiveness is a function of some of the kernel changes. Some
> upcoming changes (low latency, etc) will make a drastic difference in
> responsivity.  
> 
> But , yes, memory requirements are climbing as users expect more "stuff"
> to be there.
> 
> twm is very light and fast. But it is seriously ugly and hard to use. 
> 
> On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 13:00, John Wells wrote:
> > <rant>
> > Is it just me, or are Gnome and KDE apps complete memory hogs?  I'm 
> > trying to scrounge by on 256mb of memory under RH 9/Gnome, and man, is it 
> > difficult.  Now, part of the problem is that I use java quite a bit, but 
> > typically don't have more than one jvm going at a time.
> > 
> > Apps you'd think would have relatively small footprint are huge, in my 
> > opinion.  For example, running Gnome System Monitor consumes 9.2MB on my 
> > system...why?  Why in the world would that consume so much memory?  It 
> > makes no sense to me that the monitoring of network/cpu/memory should be 
> > so consuming...
> > 
> > Nautilus has always been a hog (8.2 currently...which seems to be an 
> > improvement over past versions), gnome-panel at 12.2 MB, gnome-terminal at 
> > 13.3MB, gweather-applet-2 at 4.4MB...
> > 
> > When I first installed RH 5.2 back in 99, I was able to run WindowMaker or 
> > Afterstep with quite a few apps going in 16 megs of RAM.  I couldn't fit 
> > RH9's big toe in that box.
> > 
> > I don't run KDE, but I've heard from friends that it's essentially just as 
> > bad...
> > 
> > So what's the culprit?  Is it Gnome's reliance on Corba?  Is it poor 
> > design of the toolkits themselves?  Is it the underlying X protocol? 
> > I shudder to say this, but applications on Windows that do the equivalent 
> > of many of the above have much smaller footprints and are more responsive 
> > under heavy load.  
> > </rant>
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong...I love linux, and I'm particularly home in 
> > Gnome....but sometimes things just don't seem right.
> > 
> > Anyone have any insight?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> -- 
> James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing world/
> CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user         /
> Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.          /
> 770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
> http://www.localnetsolutions.com
> 
> GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale