[olug] open source vs the world

[Ben Dinger]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:16:14AM -0600, Jacobs, Robert A. wrote:
> 
> 15-30 seconds?! What file manager are you/were you using? My home machine
> has been exorcised of Windows Software for nearly 3 years now and it is
> a 1.4ghz machine.  I'm using Gnome with the Nautilus file manager (two 
> applications/suites not particularly known for being svelte) and I've
> never seen it take more than a second or two to launch the file manager.
> Are you sure you are not exaggerating or basing your statements on
> experiences that are no longer relevant (say from 5-7 years ago or 
> whenever it was you last ran a linux-based desktop)?  Has anyone else 
> experienced this kind of lag when bringing up a file manager?

I don't think it's the processor speed that is the problem.  More likely, in my experience, KDE and Gnome anymore have become amazingly RAM-hungry.  Heck, everything has: browsers, mail clients, even gnome-terminal.  With recent "commercial" distros (think Suse) it's my experience that 256MB should be the bare minimum when running KDE and Gnome, with 512MB + being preferred for most power users.  My work desktop is a 1.8ghz P4 with 1.5GB of RAM, and it runs Gnome/XD2 on NLD 9 very very smoothly.  Counterpoint is the desktop that our warehouse manager uses, which is a 2.4-ish ghz Celeron IBM ThinkCentre with 256MB of RAM.  It's great as long as you don't get too crazy with open apps (say, Firefox + ibm5250 + Evolution + OpenOffice).  Then it turns into a swapping dog. 

Another thing to remember is that when you are NOT using KDE/Gnome, modern distros run great on modern-ish hardware.  Our warehouse workstations are all PIII-650's with 96MB of RAM (don't ask), and all are running Suse 9 with windowmaker.  They are quite speedy, and will run firefox just fine.  

I think the problem is the KDE and Gnome projects have gotten lazy and adopted the Mac OS X strategy.  Instead of making the GUI more efficent, they've focused on making it "pretty" and using all these "neat" effects.  Which is great, and all, but as the previous reply stated - this turns some folks off, namely the power users who don't want to invest in a gig of RAM so that they can do in Gnome/KDE what they did in Wmaker/FVWM2/Fluxbox.  

Which is where you get the Windows comparison.  Remember, the great satan in Redmond has spent lots of time with lots of developers and lots of money to ensure that Windows XPloiter works great on the default hardware that they recommend.  And it's true.  XP will run great on a celeron-based emachine with 256MB of RAM.  It's far more snappy with a couple big apps open than Gnome/KDE are.  We all know this is easily fixed, but Joe Q Public does not. 

Anyway, that's my .02.  :) 

-- 
Ben Dinger
ben at mac-geek.com
"The Pope?  How many divisions has he got?" --Josef Stalin