Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 221

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

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Michaels screenshots suggest that the GUI for the test suite wasn't used which is quite interesting.

    His average and minimum usage numbers suggests a 30% increase for KDE over Gnome.
    His Max usages suggest 24%

    My numbers suggest between 22% and 23%

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adiyaman, Turkey
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    As per mugginz numbers - the gnome vs kde (as either ubuntu+kde or kubuntu) - the numbers still match. I would be interested in say gentoo or arch with gnome/kde too). Obviously screen size, video played, etc are all relevant to the final numbers.
    I dont think anybody is saying that KDE uses less memory than GNOME or whatever. But it doesnt use 500+ MBs either.

    Regarding the title..

    The variable that is changing is the desktop environment. The primary measures that were taken were power and performance. The test was consistent.

    I guess the title could have been "Power and Memory Usage with bundled GNOME/KDE/LXDE/XFCE on Ubuntu Karmic while running Video" - but I think that would just look silly.

    Matthew

    Title could be "Power & Memory Usage of GNOME/KDE/LXDE/XFCE on Ubuntu" and it wouldnt be silly at all. Actually it would be _correct_.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    While I haven't read every single word of the article, it was clearly pointed out that it was running on Ubuntu, and well stated what was used. I think the heading is just fine - Phoronix can't be responsible for people not reading the article properly.
    With that said, I do think that a thorough test should include a comparison with at least one other distro if the main aim is to properly represent the effects of the desktop environment. I personally skimmed through the article, but as I don't use Ubuntu, it was kind of pointless for me. If the article had been with Ubuntu and something else, then I would classify it as an interesting article.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    More grist for the mill.

    Ubuntu Lucid Alpha3 at Gnome desktop
    292M....After initial install, reboot and launch terminal
    308M....After a few moments it grows to 308M
    Reboot and....
    180M....Straight after desktop appears
    220M....Grows to this after a short while.
    Reboot again and.....
    165M....Straight after desktop appears
    197M....Grows to this after a short while.
    Now perform update. 474 packages are upgraded.
    Reboot again and.....
    296M....Straight after desktop appears.
    312M....After 15 seconds it grows to this.
    Reboot again and.....
    168M....Straight after desktop appears.
    177M....Immediately grows to this.
    183M....After a few more seconds.
    196M....The system stabilised at this.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Given that the Gnome install behaves the same as the KDE installs in relation to initial fluctuation followed by a stabilised reading, I'm comfortable with comparing the stabilised numbers for both desktops.

    That then becomes KDE 232 & Gnome 195 or 19% increase over Gnome.

    Also considering that the Gnome desktop isn't running any applets of any kind on the desktop it could be considered relevant to also compare KDE without desktop applets vs Gnome without desktop applets which then becomes:

    KDE 228 & Gnome 195 or 17% increase over Gnome.

    The latter figure is probably the more relevant if the question you wish to answer is how each desktop compares relative to one another, usage pattern for usage pattern.

    If the question is Ubuntu with Gnome vs KDE then the former number would be more correct to use based on the assumption that you're measuring the default distro config.

  6. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    I guess the title could have been "Power and Memory Usage with bundled GNOME/KDE/LXDE/XFCE on Ubuntu Karmic while running Video" - but I think that would just look silly.

    Matthew
    That would just look fair. Even better if you would cut out a "video" part.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Replies to this thread have been mostly an endless string of "protect my favorite DE" bullocks. I can sum them up to:

    1. kde pulling in lots of unrelated dependencies, because
    2. kubuntu is a horrible implementation of kde, and
    3. you're not using vanilla kernels or archlinux/gentoo

    i.e. "you SUCK".

    The thing is, no one cares about archlinux and/or gentoo and your -Os flags (I have yet to witness the advantage of using compilation flags, never changed for me an INCH of how fast stuff runs. I was just staring annoyed at my screen looking for some lameass TEXT EDITOR to compile. That's when I got back to debian). People use debian, ubuntu, fedora and suse and co., if distrowatch's to be believed. It's not a matter of the distribution, it's the fact KDE is just more bloated than the rest, in general. Which is bloated enough (even XFCE feels slow nowadays).

    I've tried many distributions, even those that offer KDE as their main DE. KDE 3X, KDE4X, the thing was ALWAYS sluggish and annoying to use, when you want to get down to being productive. If your DE needs a gaming computer to feel snappy, I guess you're doing something wrong.

    Honestly, I couldn't care less about GNOME, but pointing the blame at the distribution, the implementation, or QT, is just puerile. KDE is crap, don't use it. These tests show it clearly.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susikala View Post
    Honestly, I couldn't care less about GNOME, but pointing the blame at the distribution, the implementation, or QT, is just puerile. KDE is crap, don't use it. These tests show it clearly.
    Oh teh noes. There goes this thread!

    Seriously, this is the conclusion you drew out of this comparison? That KDE sucks because it uses, what, 20% more memory than Gnome?

    Ah, whatever, enjoy the flames.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Well, apparently that 20% is hyper-important, or there wouldn't be 118 replies!

    I suspect what happens is that we all now how bad, ugly, slow, featureless and BLOATED Gnome is...so this article amounts to sacrilege.

    Now excuse me, I'm going to take some popcorn on account of what is coming over.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    344

    Lightbulb Hi

    Let's clear up some confusion between the Vegans and the Meat eaters.


    System ram less than 1-GB (One Gigabyte) requires the high-mem option to be disabled in the kernel.

    Single core systems, One processor systems need to disable the Symmetric Multiprocessing option.

    Set your clock hz back to 250 if it already isn't.

    Turn off dynamic ticks.

    Set your processor type.

    Disable Generic CPU Support.

    There is an option for 64Bit memory controllers. Disable it.

    If you have IDE hard-drives then disable the scsi / SATA emuation and re-enable the PATA functionality.

    That about does it for the kernel options.

    * Make sure your filesystem is compiled in, controllers as well.

    Recompile.

    Turn off the swap.

    If performance and ram usage is still bad then recompile GLibc to i686.

    Argument:
    I'm sick to death of watching patron after patron attempt to use this packed generic kernels. How hard is it to just build kernels for processors? SUSE build service, ok well put the damn thing to work. Then when you install you get a GLibC, Kernel, and GCC that matches your machine instruction set. Like Gentoo but without the effort.

    Hell no, we all got to run this generic ass shit. People on here arguing about 15 Megabytes of memory. What the hell is this DOS 6.22? Where is my QEMM ( The other one from the 80's ) and Stacker Pro?
    Jumping frogs, I'm using 150 megaybytes I may break the system.

    xxx total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 3456 1363 2093 0 143 318
    -/+ buffers/cache: 901 2554
    Swap: 2549 0 2549

    1.3 gigs of 3.4 gigs.

    I'm overweight.

    Karmic / Booboo 9.10 64bit Latest patches, ATI 10.1 driver.


    After we went to 2.6 kernels memory price went up. The 2.4 kernels ate less ram. I also agree with some people about the kernel developers. But I don't think they are using Linux as their primary operating systems.

    I think they go out to new egg and spend their royalties on a 16 Gigabyte Dual SLI 10 200Gigabyte Solid State, Dual Quad Core Intel pile of waste and remorse. Then they have their laptop from Radio Shack with Windows 7.
    That's why it takes so long to get a new kernel out for Mr. Torvaulds. He has to ssh into, remote into his SUSE beast, wait I like SUSE. Germans are cool. Fedora beast he keeps up in the attic and ...

    Anyway. I don't think they give a shit. Microsoft knows who uses their products. Yep you used that Visa to buy the copy of Vista. That info is served up on a HyperV, SQLServer 2008 box. Backdoor and you know who knows you.

    Personally the best copy of Linux i've ever run is my Andriod.

Posting Permissions

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