Ubuntu/Xubuntu/Kubuntu/Lubuntu Power Tests

The KDE problem is likely caused by this bug here https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=240802

This doesn't suprise me. I've used KDE as my default desktop back in the days, I think it was versions 3.2 and later 3.5, but every time I've tried the 4.x releases (including 4.6) they have been slow and laggy. I mostly use Linux on netbooks (atom + intel gma) these days, but still, Gnome 2 and 3 have no such problems on the same hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraftman

In KDE when you have compositions enabled you can play games with normal frame rate. Unlike gnome's hell. KDE uses caching, so it's resource efficient. Gnome shell 'uses' memory leak, so it's a real memory hog.

---

What do you mean "gnome shell uses memory leak"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nej_simon

What do you mean "gnome shell uses memory leak"?

---

I mean it suffers from memory leak. Well known problem on some/many configurations. You have to restart gnome shell from time to time to make it usable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nej_simon

This doesn't suprise me. I've used KDE as my default desktop back in the days, I think it was versions 3.2 and later 3.5, but every time I've tried the 4.x releases (including 4.6) they have been slow and laggy. I mostly use Linux on netbooks (atom + intel gma) these days, but still, Gnome 2 and 3 have no such problems on the same hardware.

---

On my box it's different. KDE4 gaves much smoother experience than gnome 2 and 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loudergood

The KDE problem is likely caused by this bug here https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=240802

---

And it seems only Kubuntu is affected... The problem with Kubuntu is the damn Canonical doesn't care about fixing Kubuntu bugs.

Quote:

---

The only pattern so far seems to be that only (K)ubuntu users are affected.

---

I may be wrong, but only the idle test can actually show the difference between the desktops that are tested here. So the way desktop apps are handled and so how efficient they are to do it (in speed and power efficiency) is not shown. Manipulating windows could show a real deffierence, and not in favor of the so-called "light" desktops.

That could be a real test to show the fastest/lightest/smoothest/obiwanest desktop.

How about a test with Fedora base instead of Ubuntu ? It begins to irritate me when I see another article of testing with Ubuntu as a base. Ubuntu is not Linux, it just embeds it, and it's far from the only one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActionParsnip

I suggest you look into FLWM, Awesome, Fluxbox or OpenBox to name a few. Openbox is used as the WM for LXDE. You can use just openbox ON ITS OWN. This will immediately mate it lighter. "The LXDE desktop is generally said to be the fastest and lightest desktop environment" is is a complete lie. I suggest you research before making such bold statements.

---

Of course he knows that... it is however the lightest complete/pre-built DE out there.
Of course something like crunchbang is lighter, but it's not directly comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActionParsnip

I suggest you look into FLWM, Awesome, Fluxbox or OpenBox to name a few. Openbox is used as the WM for LXDE. You can use just openbox ON ITS OWN. This will immediately mate it lighter. "The LXDE desktop is generally said to be the fastest and lightest desktop environment" is is a complete lie. I suggest you research before making such bold statements.

---

There's a difference between a Desktop Environment and a Window Manager. Many WMs will be faster than LXDE, which (as the name suggests) is a DE. You seem to be aware of this distinction but ignore it?