Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 221

Thread: Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default Caching

    KDE do some caching (I don't know what the settings are in Kubuntu, but it is probably enabled).

    It's like comparing Windows XP dans 7. 7 will max out your memory at anytime, but in fact use less tahn 10% more than XP. KDE do a lot of caching to make apps load faster. Memory don't need to be wasted. All modern OS do some caching to make the system feel faster. Of course Kubuntu is a terrible KDE distro and feel slower than Vista, but it's an other story. But please keep in mind that it does mather in a professional benchmark, your KDE stats are biased.

    Only Gentoo with -Os in make.conf will give the real picture. At least you know that both DE have been compiled the same way, and not optimized with different settings.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Now I'm curious as to how well e16 - or even better, e17 - stack up to everything else.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bugmenot View Post
    FLAME WAR!!!
    TROLS ATAAAAAACK!

    - KDE use more ram, albeit this test was made with a gtk program.
    If you believe a flame war started I think you are looking at the responses wrong. All I have seen is the fact that they are performing a test on a distro that has been known to bundle in extra software and startup processes. True test results should be completed on vanilla system or you are going to mislead people.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    For example (regarding "b)"), I assume that Ubuntu's KDE SC runs the Python-based printer-applet which on its own eats 20MB of RAM. I assume this, because that memory hog was developed by Canonical.
    Yes, it does.


    Btw. it seems this comparison is misleading:

    http://developer.kde.org/documentati...ed_memory.html

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    141

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by migizi View Post
    If you believe a flame war started I think you are looking at the responses wrong. All I have seen is the fact that they are performing a test on a distro that has been known to bundle in extra software and startup processes. True test results should be completed on vanilla system or you are going to mislead people.
    i was gett'n the same bad vibes as bugmenot was from this thread, man. :hippie:

    darn. this forum needs more psychedelic smilies.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Well, what distro did you want him to use for the test? Most people don't install a vanilla distro and then add their desktop? They choose their fav. distro and pick the version they prefer (many distros have a DE version). I guess if you are talkin about Gentoo????

    KDE 4 is said to be a resource hog now. I think it's tough to assess because both desktops use the library of the other for certain applications. Or am I wrong there?

    I liked this article and test because I was curious about the DE since I was wondering what DE to use for my older laptop. I currently have AntiX and Debian Squeeze with LXDE on it. I like LXDE but a few minor annoyances I had was that it didn't seem to have many native apps so I picked and chose ones I already like (but, it then had to add the libs from either Gtk or Qt depending on the app). I am not sure how well that works and how well the lighter desktops integrate. Anybody know?

    I'm a total noob regarding this stuff so if I sound silly on any of it, that's why but at least I admit it, right?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,722

    Default

    don't forget that KDE also provides a lot more features out of the box. Or does XFCE or gnome have nepomuk enabled?

    And what happens if you start a couple of apps? Firefox for gnome/xfce, konqueror for KDE? Abiword for gnome, kword for KDE?

    And if that test program was gtk based, the results are skewed and crap anyway.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default Seriously flawed

    The methodology used to conduct these "benchmarks" is *seriously* flawed.

    1. You were NOT benchmarking GNOME vs. KDE vs. LXDE vs. Xfce as such, but rather their *buntu incarnations.

    2. The last time I tested Kubuntu, KDE had a horrible memory usage there because of some crap applications running in the background.

    3. When I restart my computer into KDE 4.4.1, my memory usage is approximately 190MB used by applications (that does not include cache of course).

    4. Instead of forcing me and everybody else to read the totally cryptic paragraph describing the system&OS configuration, why not simply put those specs into a nice and readable table!!!

    5. The sad truth is that many desktop applications are using too much memory these days. For example, KCalc in KDE 4.4.1 uses 3 MB of private memory (not including shared memory). Now tell me what those 3 mega-bytes could possibly contain in such a trivial calculator application! I understand what that memory is being used for, but in my opinion the facts are horrible and speak of inefficiency.

    6. KDE uses Qt. The memory usage of KDE may be mainly caused by the fact that it uses Qt. So, first it is Qt to be blamed, only then blame KDE. A trivial graphical "Hello world" in Qt4 uses more than 2 MB of private memory. Am I alone in thinking that this is clearly a sign of a completely wrong software architecture?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,722

    Default

    yes, you are alone. Qt isn't very memory hungry.

    But that does not change the fact, that the whole thing is complete bull.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    yes, you are alone. Qt isn't very memory hungry
    Seems you have different standards than me.

    But let me ask you a question: Have you ever looked into the source code of some Linux executable or library? I have, and from what I have seen I can tell you that the amount of inefficiency in common Linux programs is breathtaking. Seriously, if you think about the algorithms used there and compare them to "ideal" implementations, the result is shocking. The number of totally pointlessly burned CPU cycles is massive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •