Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #51194 > unrolled thread

Neon's KDE vs F28 XFCE ram

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  Neon's KDE vs F28 XFCE ram Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-10-11 19:31 -0700
    Re: Neon's KDE vs F28 XFCE ram Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-12 09:09 -0400
      Re: Neon's KDE vs F28 XFCE ram Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-10-12 09:32 -0700

#51194 — Neon's KDE vs F28 XFCE ram

Comparing a live boot of default Fedora 28 XFCE to the desktop with live 
Neon KDE 5.14 (Neon v./s numbered by KDE Plasma v.) Oct 9 release based 
on Ub 18.04 as reported by free -m: Neon KDE uses 7.6% more ram than 
F28's XFCE; 408 vs 381 meg.  Also, unlike the gnome graphical tool which 
reports used ram with high numbers, the KDE graphical report is much 
more consistent with free's report.

Various DEs have significantly different resource usage when compared in 
their boot to the live desktop.  Various reviews which emphasize ram 
usage booted to the default desktop report ram used based on the gnome 
tool, which tool is 'inaccurate' compared to free.  Naturally the 
concept of accuracy here revolves around exactly what is being reported 
and how it is calculated.

These days many DEs use a significant bit of ram to the live desktop, 
including Cinnamon and Gnome, and some Mates, since mate has been 
'graduating' to more complete gtk3.  Likewise LXQt on current Qt vs LXDE 
on gtk2.  Many are using well over half a gig, such as 700+ meg.  That 
is 'difficult' if the booting machine is working with limited resources, 
such as those with less than half a gig or half to one gig.


-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51220

Mike Easter wrote:
> Comparing a live boot of default Fedora 28 XFCE to the desktop with live 
> Neon KDE 5.14 (Neon v./s numbered by KDE Plasma v.) Oct 9 release based 
> on Ub 18.04 as reported by free -m: Neon KDE uses 7.6% more ram than 
> F28's XFCE; 408 vs 381 meg.  Also, unlike the gnome graphical tool which 
> reports used ram with high numbers, the KDE graphical report is much 
> more consistent with free's report.
> 
> Various DEs have significantly different resource usage when compared in 
> their boot to the live desktop.  Various reviews which emphasize ram 
> usage booted to the default desktop report ram used based on the gnome 
> tool, which tool is 'inaccurate' compared to free.  Naturally the 
> concept of accuracy here revolves around exactly what is being reported 
> and how it is calculated.
> 
> These days many DEs use a significant bit of ram to the live desktop, 
> including Cinnamon and Gnome, and some Mates, since mate has been 
> 'graduating' to more complete gtk3.  Likewise LXQt on current Qt vs LXDE 
> on gtk2.  Many are using well over half a gig, such as 700+ meg.  That 
> is 'difficult' if the booting machine is working with limited resources, 
> such as those with less than half a gig or half to one gig.

Have you tried squeezing these down in a VM ?

You can reduce the RAM size in a virtual machine,
until the "screen turns black". And that's
a measure of how much RAM they really need.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51230

Paul wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> Neon KDE uses 7.6% more ram 
>> than F28's XFCE; 408 vs 381 meg.  
>>
>> These days many DEs use a significant bit of ram to the live desktop, 
>> including Cinnamon and Gnome, and some Mates, since mate has been 
>> 'graduating' to more complete gtk3.  Likewise LXQt on current Qt vs 
>> LXDE on gtk2.  Many are using well over half a gig, such as 700+ meg.  
>> That is 'difficult' if the booting machine is working with limited 
>> resources, such as those with less than half a gig or half to one gig.
> 
> Have you tried squeezing these down in a VM ?
> 
> You can reduce the RAM size in a virtual machine,
> until the "screen turns black". And that's
> a measure of how much RAM they really need.
> 
That sounds like an interesting experiment.  I know that some distros 
are designed to assess how much ram is available for purposes of 
creating a ram disk at the time of booting a live desktop; and I also 
believe that some developers purposely configure their default DE in a 
way which does not eat up too much ram, while others apparently don't 
consider that a worthwhile consideration.

KDE's Neon creates a default KDE environment which is much more sparing 
of ram than some other KDE distros.  In fact, Neon is very spare in its 
default stable of installed programs in the live default.


-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web