[olug] open source vs the world

[Jacobs, Robert A.]

>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.
>
>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. 

<snip! discussion about RAM-hungry applications>

<snip! discussion about Ben's work environment>

>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.  

This is probably a good point. I do have a gig of RAM in my home machine.

>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. 

You are the only person I have *ever* heard say (or imply) that running a
Windows machine with the recommended/default hardware results in a "snappy"
experience. A RAM upgrade is almost a de facto requirement; YMMV (apparently).

-raj