Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Features Coming In The Xfce 4.12 Desktop

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17

    Default

    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumico View Post
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.
    Thats a wrong interpretation. First of all RAM has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is going to be quicker to work with a smaller amount of RAM than a larger amount. Period. Second RAM is for applications to use. What exactly is the point in having OS components consume large amounts of RAM for when in reality all it does is take longer to work with and removes it from use by applications?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Of course, but why would you install KDevelop if you are not going to use it? I thought it was implicit that it wasn't shared between KDevelop and something else when running it. About the weight, I don't know, since I don't use anything from the KDE side (I do use some Qt apps, but the ones I use do not depend on anything from the KDE camp), I just know that as long as they are used only by an app, those libs are kind of a waste of resources. How much, of course, depends on how big the libs are. Of course, using it or not is a choice. As I already said, that's why one can not say it eliminates competition. The user is still able to choose whatever fits him. I wouldn't refrain from using a KDE program if the ones most compatible with my desktop of choice don't satisfy me either, but I've got pretty simple requirements and almost any software can achieve them :P
    The point was, the memory usage would only rise at those times when I'd be using the application, and unless it's an application that I'd have to use with multiple other applications, or one that I'd have to use all the time, I don't see the memory usage as much of a problem. I mean, Firefox can use over a GB of RAM, depending on the amount of tabs open... compared to that, the KDE libs are piecemeal.

    I was mostly making the point that installing software on your computer that uses different libs/toolkits than your DE doesn't cause any harm per se. The disk space needed for the extra libs is neglicible, and when it comes to memory usage, well... that's just another factor you need to evaluate when you consider which software suits your purpose best. There's always a tradeoff, it just depends what quality you value the most - low memory usage, functionality, ease of use, speed, stability, etc...

    The thing with Mir and interoperability, I *think* it's more LightDM's fault than anything else's. As I see it, LightDM, which does a pretty basic use of display in general, could start as a DRI only app and then open the correct display server for the desktop you choose to use. But maybe there are technical impediments for that idea that I'm not able to see.
    I was thinking more of the application side. When we get to applications that don't usually use GUI toolkits, such as games (especially ones ported from other OS's), at least some of them are going to want to talk to the display server directly - not all will want to use SDL. Without Mir, Wayland would have been a no-brainer choice for them, at least somewhere down the line. Now, they have to decide between Mir, Wayland or - more likely - just using the lowest common denominator, X.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumico View Post
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.
    If applications use less memory, more memory can be used for disk caching.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis3 View Post
    Someone tested memory usage of basic desktop installs:


    I use Xubuntu but switched the desktop to E17, and the memory used went down from 150ish mb down to about 50 mb; looks better AND has more features than KDE, which is a memory hog and takes ages to load, comparable to Unity and Gnome 3 of course.

    But aside from E17 which might look intimidating for having so much customization (like KDE), XFCE, and LXDE are very good. For true old machines, you might go with IceWM or similar.

    The base system also helps. Instead of Xubuntu, try ubuntu minimal, (pick option command line only) then just the apt-get the package xfce4. Or switch distro if you don't care about Canonical repositories. I'm hoping for Bodhi Linux to improve, but they need to fix PXE install using their ISO. You might also try the Linux Mint flavors.
    Pretty sure this list more or less data gibberish.
    Why don't measure how much memory respective desktopshell and windowmanager use instead? Measuring some sort of default installation with arbitrary bloat the actual dist choose to include is kinda strange.
    Last edited by Akka; 07-02-2013 at 03:52 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't those libraries only be used when an application is running that needs them? So there'd be no memory penalty the rest of the time.
    You're right.

    I have a low-end system running Razor-qt. It has some programs that rely on KDE libraries (either because I need those programs in particular, or because there are no direct Qt versions of the programs that provide the needed functionality). It's using Mageia right now, and it has two web browsers installed: Arora and rekonq. Arora starts up fast, but the browsing performance is abysmal. And rekonq, while being a KDE program, takes a while to start (has to load all the KDE libraries), but it's actually quite snappy. Same with other KDE programs, they take a while to start. But if you don't auto-load them, it's Razor-qt as usual.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Thats a wrong interpretation. First of all RAM has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is going to be quicker to work with a smaller amount of RAM than a larger amount. Period. Second RAM is for applications to use. What exactly is the point in having OS components consume large amounts of RAM for when in reality all it does is take longer to work with and removes it from use by applications?
    If applications use less memory, more memory can be used for disk caching.
    Thank you. I need a thanks button like on xda.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    The point was, the memory usage would only rise at those times when I'd be using the application, and unless it's an application that I'd have to use with multiple other applications, or one that I'd have to use all the time, I don't see the memory usage as much of a problem. I mean, Firefox can use over a GB of RAM, depending on the amount of tabs open... compared to that, the KDE libs are piecemeal.
    The thing is you get into problems usually not because of a single app, but because of the combination.
    I was mostly making the point that installing software on your computer that uses different libs/toolkits than your DE doesn't cause any harm per se. The disk space needed for the extra libs is neglicible, and when it comes to memory usage, well... that's just another factor you need to evaluate when you consider which software suits your purpose best. There's always a tradeoff, it just depends what quality you value the most - low memory usage, functionality, ease of use, speed, stability, etc...
    That's exactly my point, actually. There are pros and there are cons. The pros depends on the specific app, and that's why I didn't list them: because I can't, without focusing on a single case. But there is a common con to the use of apps that depends on parts of other desktops (or that use agnostic libraries not used by your desktop), which is the increased memory use.
    I was thinking more of the application side. When we get to applications that don't usually use GUI toolkits, such as games (especially ones ported from other OS's), at least some of them are going to want to talk to the display server directly - not all will want to use SDL. Without Mir, Wayland would have been a no-brainer choice for them, at least somewhere down the line. Now, they have to decide between Mir, Wayland or - more likely - just using the lowest common denominator, X.
    I understand. So it's related to the other discussion on this thread. As I said already, if Mir's API ends up being unstable, this might be a good thing for Wayland users, since nobody would target an unstable API and most apps running on Unity will forcibly target a toolkit. If not, then it's likely that you are completely right.

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Thats a wrong interpretation. First of all RAM has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is going to be quicker to work with a smaller amount of RAM than a larger amount. Period. Second RAM is for applications to use. What exactly is the point in having OS components consume large amounts of RAM for when in reality all it does is take longer to work with and removes it from use by applications?
    There's also the complementary question to ask: what's the point of just consuming more RAM "because", and buying more RAM because it's used in pointless ways. I'm not against using more memory if it brings useful features or makes things faster (that's why I don't whine with Firefox' memory use: it's caching content, thus, allowing me to browse faster).

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Pretty sure this list more or less data gibberish.
    Why don't measure how much memory respective desktopshell and windowmanager use instead? Measuring some sort of default installation with arbitrary bloat the actual dist choose to include is kinda strange.
    Any setup would be arbitrary anyway. The most logical setups I can think of are default and only the window manager.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jumico View Post
    I don't understand why the memory usage matters? What's the point in having so much free memory? I mean if the DE utilizes more memory doesn't that mean it can be potentially faster depending on how it uses it? I always have at least a gigabyte of free memory so it seems like it would be a good thing for it to be used.
    the point is that some douchebags likes to play with their "celeron 133 mhz, 16 mb ram" machines, so its a "pretty big deal" to use ram only when you need it. Memory usage for actual performance is not a thing, that should matter, its fast cpu, fast hdd/ssd, plus good written real DE, not some shitty des that someone made a list of, linux doesnt have a good de, so people doesnt have what to do, and then they starting to compare useless things, like memory usage.

  10. #40

    Default Development Dead?

    I am running Xubuntu 14.04 and am still on XFCE 4.10, i see the roadmap dates for XFCE have all had there dates crossed out. Does this mean that the XFCE desktop suite has no developers? I'd sort of like to know so that I can start searching for another Desktop suite to use instead. I love the lightweightness of XFCE, maybe I should go try LXDE.

Posting Permissions

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