Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #232606 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-03-09 23:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-03-11 14:10 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 58 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-09 23:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-09 23:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 01:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 10:30 +0100
Re: Plasma can be a lightweight (was: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 11:40 +0100
Re: Plasma can be a lightweight Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 12:30 +0100
Re: Plasma can be a lightweight Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-11 09:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 12:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 15:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 02:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 03:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 15:10 +0100
Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-10 17:10 +0100
Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 17:40 +0100
Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:00 +0100
Re: OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:00 +0100
OT: Footnotes in email (Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-10 17:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 mmDebMail2020@marwedels.de - 2021-03-10 19:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Keith Bainbridge <keith.bainbridge.3216@gmx.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-10 08:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 10:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 00:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 16:20 +0100
Multipart HTML emails (was: Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-10 17:30 +0100
Re: Multipart HTML emails (was: Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 18:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 17:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-03-10 22:20 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:10 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:50 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 04:00 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 04:40 +0100
Re: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-11 14:10 +0100
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-09 23:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10 |
| Message-ID | <BQTbc-5TW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello. I'm new to GNU/Linux systems. I would like to know why the RAM requirements showed here: https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch03s04.en.html are double the size of those displayed here: https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/ch03s04.html.en Excuse my ignorance, I have a bit old laptop and I don't know if it would be better to have Debian 9 so I can, possibly, load KDE on it, or instead Debian 10 but having to limit myself to lightweight applications only. Anyway, thanks in advance for any help you could give me. PS: If I'm not using the mailing list properly, let me know, I never used any before.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-09 23:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTkR-5Xh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232606 |
> I'm new to GNU/Linux systems. I would like to know
> why the RAM requirements showed here:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch03s04.en.html
> are double the size of those displayed here:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/ch03s04.html.en
I think it just reflects the progressive increase of memory use of
"typical" desktop applications, including the desktop environment: that
doesn't mean the memory use really doubled, but they just chose to
increase the recommended memory in steps of x2: I have a 1GB laptop here
(with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has been painful for many
years already.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTEd-6mV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232607 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> I have a 1GB laptop here > (with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has been painful for many > years already. May I ask, what version of Debian do you use? I have been reading throughout the Web that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before. Apparently, its performance is comparable to that of KDE or GNOME. PS: sorry, I forgot to send this reply to the mailing list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTEd-6mV-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232609 |
>> I have a 1GB laptop here (with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has
>> been painful for many years already.
> May I ask, what version of Debian do you use?
Debian testing.
> I have been reading throughout the Web that Xfce4 is not so
> lightweight as it was before. Apparently, its performance is
> comparable to that of KDE or GNOME.
I wouldn't know since I use XFCE4 everywhere, but the desktop
environment only has some impact. When it comes to Firefox, the main
issue is Firefox itself and the pages you visit.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTNU-6qe-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232611 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> Debian testing. I see that you use the latest version of the system, maybe it could have some impact on performance. > I wouldn't know since I use XFCE4 everywhere, but the desktop > environment only has some impact. When it comes to Firefox, the main > issue is Firefox itself and the pages you visit. I had trouble with Firefox in the past on Windows 7, I had to change to Chrome then. Surprisingly, now Firefox is behaving relatively well. I thought I would not have the same problem changing from Windows to Debian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQUJX-6Zg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232615 |
>> I wouldn't know since I use XFCE4 everywhere, but the desktop
>> environment only has some impact. When it comes to Firefox, the main
>> issue is Firefox itself and the pages you visit.
>
> I had trouble with Firefox in the past on Windows 7,
> I had to change to Chrome then. Surprisingly,
> now Firefox is behaving relatively well.
>
> I thought I would not have the same problem changing from Windows to Debian.
I didn't mean to blame Firefox specifically. It's just that nowadays
the simplest web-page showing you a 10-line message can't resist
connecting to about 100 different web sites and download a health number
of MB of images and other crap.
It's just as painful with any other browser (either because they
support all the needed feature, so they eat up all the available RAM of
my poor laptop, or because they don't support all those features, so
they're slim and efficient but the web-page doesn't display properly).
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BR3kd-3Wl-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232609 |
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400): Stefan Monnier composed on 2021-03-09 17:46 (UTC-0500): ... >> I have a 1GB laptop here >> (with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has been painful for many >> years already. > May I ask, what version of Debian do you use? > I have been reading throughout the Web > that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before. > Apparently, its performance is comparable to that of KDE > or GNOME. This may be where that came from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk> -- Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion, is based on faith, not on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 11:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Plasma can be a lightweight (was: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10) |
| Message-ID | <BR4pY-4yI-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232609 |
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400):
Stefan Monnier composed on 2021-03-09 17:46 (UTC-0500):
...
>> I have a 1GB laptop here
>> (with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has been painful for many
>> years already.
> May I ask, what version of Debian do you use?
> I have been reading throughout the Web
> that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before.
> Apparently, its performance is comparable to that of KDE
> or GNOME.
This may be where that came from:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk>
Here's a simple look at RAM before and after first launching IceWM, then
rebooting, then a freshly installed Plasma session on an old single core PC that
had had only KDE3 and IceWM on TW.
# inxi -CGIMy
Machine:
Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex GX280 v: N/A serial: 20HRT71
Mobo: Dell model: N/A serial: .. . BIOS: Dell v: A07 date: 11/29/2005
CPU:
Info: Single Core model: Intel Pentium 4 bits: 32 type: MCP L2 cache: 1024 KiB
Speed: 2793 MHz min/max: N/A Core speed (MHz): 1: 2793
Graphics:
Device-1: Intel 82915G/GV/910GL Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: intel
unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa resolution: 1680x1050~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915G x86/MMX/SSE2 v: 1.4 Mesa 20.3.4
Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
# free # before launching startx into IceWM
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1525408 51264 1313580 1552 160564 1293900
Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
# free # after launching startx into IceWM and Xterm
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1525408 71732 1213716 14980 239960 1259048
Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
20468 used by IceWM
# inxi -Sy
System:
Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
Desktop: IceWM 2.1.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
I rebooted before launching Plasma and Konsole on the same PC:
# free # before launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1525568 51536 1305632 8444 168400 1286812
Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
# free # after launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1525568 188264 899976 51360 437328 1103940
Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
136728
# inxi -Sy
System:
Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
No, it's not Debian. I never put Plasma on my Debians, which all use TDE. This was
a freshly updated Tumbleweed, so the Plasma version is fresh. There's no XFCE on
it. It won't be added either, as there's nothing about it I like better than KDE3,
TDE or Plasma, and the disk has no room for more additions, worthwhile or
otherwise. Thus, the difference between XFCE and Plasma or IceWM will need a
different PC.
The point is, Plasma can be rather lean, using only 116260 more than IceWM to get
a basic session started.
--
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
is based on faith, not on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 12:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Plasma can be a lightweight |
| Message-ID | <BR5cl-54G-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232664 |
Felix Miata composed on 2021-03-10 05:33 (UTC-0500):
> Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400):
>> I have been reading throughout the Web
>> that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before.
>> Apparently, its performance is comparable to that of KDE
>> or GNOME.
> This may be where that came from:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk>
> Here's a simple look at RAM before and after first launching IceWM, then
> rebooting, then a freshly installed Plasma session on an old single core PC that
> had had only KDE3 and IceWM on TW.
> # inxi -CGIMy
> Machine:
> Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex GX280 v: N/A serial: 20HRT71
> Mobo: Dell model: N/A serial: .. . BIOS: Dell v: A07 date: 11/29/2005
> CPU:
> Info: Single Core model: Intel Pentium 4 bits: 32 type: MCP L2 cache: 1024 KiB
> Speed: 2793 MHz min/max: N/A Core speed (MHz): 1: 2793
> Graphics:
> Device-1: Intel 82915G/GV/910GL Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
> Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: intel
> unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa resolution: 1680x1050~60Hz
> OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915G x86/MMX/SSE2 v: 1.4 Mesa 20.3.4
> Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
> # free # before launching startx into IceWM
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 1525408 51264 1313580 1552 160564 1293900
> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> # free # after launching startx into IceWM and Xterm
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 1525408 71732 1213716 14980 239960 1259048
> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> 20468 used by IceWM
> # inxi -Sy
> System:
> Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
> Desktop: IceWM 2.1.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
>
> I rebooted before launching Plasma and Konsole on the same PC:
> # free # before launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 1525568 51536 1305632 8444 168400 1286812
> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> # free # after launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 1525568 188264 899976 51360 437328 1103940
> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> 136728
> # inxi -Sy
> System:
> Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
> Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
> No, it's not Debian. I never put Plasma on my Debians, which all use TDE. This was
> a freshly updated Tumbleweed, so the Plasma version is fresh. There's no XFCE on
> it. It won't be added either, as there's nothing about it I like better than KDE3,
> TDE or Plasma, and the disk has no room for more additions, worthwhile or
> otherwise. Thus, the difference between XFCE and Plasma or IceWM will need a
> different PC.
> The point is, Plasma can be rather lean, using only 116260 more than IceWM to get
> a basic session started.
The following isn't directly comparable to the above, as the Plasma installation
and user are anything but fresh. However, it is a minimal, and started up in same
manner, just on 64 bits instead of 32, and the same Plasma version on the same OS
release, with 270996 instead of 136728 used to start a session:
# fresh boot to multi-user before startx into Plasma & Konsole
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3934880 92840 3612164 9912 229876 3601836
Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
# after startx into Plasma & Konsole
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3934880 363836 3040312 75688 530732 3250656
Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
270996 used by Plasma & Konsole
# inxi -CGIMSy
System:
Host: gx745 Kernel: 5.10.16-1-default x86_64 bits: 64
Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
Machine:
Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex 745 v: N/A serial: 901DSC1
Mobo: Dell model: 0GX297 serial: ..CN6986173Q1835. BIOS: Dell v: 2.6.2
date: 08/12/2008
CPU:
Info: Dual Core model: Intel Core2 6700 bits: 64 type: MCP L2 cache: 4 MiB
Speed: 1715 MHz min/max: N/A Core speeds (MHz): 1: 1715 2: 2105
Graphics:
Device-1: Intel 82Q963/Q965 Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: modesetting
unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1920x1200~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 965Q (BW) v: 2.1 Mesa 20.3.4
Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
This CPU is one year older than the thread OP's Conroe 2.33GHz E6550,
a Conroe 2.67GHz E6700.
Another difference I expected was that though both are on Dells using integrated
Intel video, the shared RAM used by video likely was more on the 64 bit, because
of the difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 displays used. the 64 only has
DVI and VGA to choose from, and used DVI, while the 32 has the same outputs, but
it's display only has VGA and DisplayPort, so had to use VGA. So, I retested the
32 with the other display and VGA instead of DVI. Used only went from 188264 to
188844, +580. :P
--
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
is based on faith, not on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-11 09:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Plasma can be a lightweight |
| Message-ID | <BRoI1-vW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232665 |
Felix Miata composed on 2021-03-10 06:23 (UTC-0500):
>> Here's a simple look at RAM before and after first launching IceWM, then
>> rebooting, then a freshly installed Plasma session on an old single core PC that
>> had had only KDE3 and IceWM on TW.
>> # inxi -CGIMy
>> Machine:
>> Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex GX280 v: N/A serial: 20HRT71
>> Mobo: Dell model: N/A serial: .. . BIOS: Dell v: A07 date: 11/29/2005
>> CPU:
>> Info: Single Core model: Intel Pentium 4 bits: 32 type: MCP L2 cache: 1024 KiB
>> Speed: 2793 MHz min/max: N/A Core speed (MHz): 1: 2793
>> Graphics:
>> Device-1: Intel 82915G/GV/910GL Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
>> Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: intel
>> unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa resolution: 1680x1050~60Hz
>> OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915G x86/MMX/SSE2 v: 1.4 Mesa 20.3.4
>> Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
>> # free # before launching startx into IceWM
>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>> Mem: 1525408 51264 1313580 1552 160564 1293900
>> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
>> # free # after launching startx into IceWM and Xterm
>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>> Mem: 1525408 71732 1213716 14980 239960 1259048
>> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
>> 20468 used by IceWM
>> # inxi -Sy
>> System:
>> Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
>> Desktop: IceWM 2.1.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
>> I rebooted before launching Plasma and Konsole on the same PC:
>> # free # before launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>> Mem: 1525568 51536 1305632 8444 168400 1286812
>> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
>> # free # after launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>> Mem: 1525568 188264 899976 51360 437328 1103940
>> Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
>> 136728
>> # inxi -Sy
>> System:
>> Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
>> Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
>> No, it's not Debian. I never put Plasma on my Debians, which all use TDE. This was
>> a freshly updated Tumbleweed, so the Plasma version is fresh. There's no XFCE on
>> it. It won't be added either, as there's nothing about it I like better than KDE3,
>> TDE or Plasma, and the disk has no room for more additions, worthwhile or
>> otherwise. Thus, the difference between XFCE and Plasma or IceWM will need a
>> different PC.
>> The point is, Plasma can be rather lean, using only 116260 more than IceWM to get
>> a basic session started.
> The following isn't directly comparable to the above, as the Plasma installation
> and user are anything but fresh. However, it is a minimal, and started up in same
> manner, just on 64 bits instead of 32, and the same Plasma version on the same OS
> release, with 270996 instead of 136728 used to start a session:
> # fresh boot to multi-user before startx into Plasma & Konsole
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 3934880 92840 3612164 9912 229876 3601836
> Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
> # after startx into Plasma & Konsole
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 3934880 363836 3040312 75688 530732 3250656
> Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
> 270996 used by Plasma & Konsole
> # inxi -CGIMSy
> System:
> Host: gx745 Kernel: 5.10.16-1-default x86_64 bits: 64
> Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
> Machine:
> Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex 745 v: N/A serial: 901DSC1
> Mobo: Dell model: 0GX297 serial: ..CN6986173Q1835. BIOS: Dell v: 2.6.2
> date: 08/12/2008
> CPU:
> Info: Dual Core model: Intel Core2 6700 bits: 64 type: MCP L2 cache: 4 MiB
> Speed: 1715 MHz min/max: N/A Core speeds (MHz): 1: 1715 2: 2105
> Graphics:
> Device-1: Intel 82Q963/Q965 Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
> Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: modesetting
> unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1920x1200~60Hz
> OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 965Q (BW) v: 2.1 Mesa 20.3.4
> Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
> This CPU is one year older than the thread OP's Conroe 2.33GHz E6550,
> a Conroe 2.67GHz E6700.
> Another difference I expected was that though both are on Dells using integrated
> Intel video, the shared RAM used by video likely was more on the 64 bit, because
> of the difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 displays used. the 64 only has
> DVI and VGA to choose from, and used DVI, while the 32 has the same outputs, but
> it's display only has VGA and DisplayPort, so had to use VGA. So, I retested the
> 32 with the other display and VGA instead of DVI. Used only went from 188264 to
> 188844, +580. :P
Here is a look at less impressive Plasma results, done on a laptop roughly similar
to a Core2Duo I think I saw mentioned up-thread. Again it's from openSUSE, but
this time Leap 15.2, featuring an older KDE 5.18 release. openSUSE provides 4
basic ways to freshly install OS with KDE:
1-base install of KDE base without recommends
2-base install of KDE base with recommends
3-"full" install of KDE without recommends
4-"full" install of KDE with recommends
The following comes from a fresh #2, along with a few selected adds and deletes:
# free # freshly booted, before startx into Plasma
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1911156 82236 1655308 26128 173612 1659980
Swap: 2457596 0 2457596
total used free shared buff/cache available
# free # after startx into Plasma and Konsole
Mem: 1911156 87780 1671092 17940 152284 1663372
Swap: 2457596 0 2457596
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1911156 377456 1076324 78056 457376 1307280
Swap: 2457596 0 2457596
295220 RAM decrease opening Plasma session
# inxi -CGISy
System:
Host: e6400 Kernel: 5.3.18-lp152.66-default x86_64 bits: 64
Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.18.6 Distro: openSUSE Leap 15.2
CPU:
Info: Dual Core model: Intel Core2 Duo P8600 bits: 64 type: MCP
L2 cache: 3 MiB
Speed: 642 MHz min/max: 800/2401 MHz Core speeds (MHz): 1: 642 2: 643
Graphics:
Device-1: Intel Mobile 4 Series Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
Display: server: X.Org 1.20.3 driver: loaded: modesetting
unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1280x800~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Mobile Intel GM45 Express v: 2.1 Mesa 19.3.4
Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
My plan when time permits is to add Tumbleweed to the same laptop, to compare
results with a much newer KDE. I might add Bullseye as well, or instead.
--
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
is based on faith, not on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTEd-6mV-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232607 |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2021 17:46:16 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > I have a 1GB laptop here > (with XFCE4) and using Firefox on it has been painful for many > years already. There is a bug in the 686 version of vivaldi, or I would recommend it to you. The amd64 version is great for low memory applications where firefox is a pita, like VMs. https://vivaldi.net/ Available as a .deb. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTNT-6qe-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232606 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> > Excuse my ignorance, I have a bit old laptop and I don't know if it would > be better > to have Debian 9 so I can, possibly, load KDE on it, or instead Debian 10 > but having to limit myself to lightweight applications only. > IMHO: it is better to use the latest Debian even on the old laptop unless your laptop is 15 years old. You can try LXDE: https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE It is very lightweight:) "tasksel" (tool that runs when you install Debian) asks you which DE to enable. You can choose LXDE there. I run it on my 2011 laptop (sandy bridge) and it works very well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQU7f-6wS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232613 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> IMHO: it is better to use the latest Debian even on the old laptop unless your laptop is 15 years old. > > You can try LXDE: https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE > It is very lightweight:) > > "tasksel" (tool that runs when you install Debian) asks you which DE to enable. You can choose LXDE there. > > I run it on my 2011 laptop (sandy bridge) and it works very well. Thanks for your advice, I think my laptop is from 2013, but it is Pineview, id est Intel Atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQUqB-6Dx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232620 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> > Thanks for your advice, I think my laptop is from 2013, > but it is Pineview, id est Intel Atom. > How much ram do you have? If it is 4Gb or less you should probably use i386 instead of the amd64 version of Debian. I'd start with Debian 10 and LXDE or LxQt: https://opensource.com/article/19/12/lxqt-lxde-linux-desktop and switch to the Debian 9 only if they work really slow. Desktop environment and Linux kernel are not the only CPU and memory consumers. Modern browsers and modern websites are heavy. I am not sure if average site works well with Firefox that runs on Pineview, but it is worth trying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQUAh-6W3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232627 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> How much ram do you have? > If it is 4Gb or less you should probably use i386 instead of the amd64 version of Debian. Yes, I was reading the amd64 version because I was also attempting to install Debian on a 4GB and Intel Core 2 Duo vPro desktop PC, which I thought could run Debian 10 with KDE. > I'd start with Debian 10 and LXDE or LxQt: > https://opensource.com/article/19/12/lxqt-lxde-linux-desktop > > and switch to the Debian 9 only if they work really slow. Sounds reasonable, but I would prefer to not download 4 GB of the DVD image twice, my internet connection is not so fast. > Desktop environment and Linux kernel are not the only CPU and memory consumers. > Modern browsers and modern websites are heavy. I am not sure if average site works well with Firefox that runs on Pineview, but it is worth trying. It works well on Windows if you don't have too much tabs opened at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BR5m2-57N-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232631 |
On 03/09/2021 06:00 PM, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > How much ram do you have? > > If it is 4Gb or less you should probably use i386 instead of the > amd64 version of Debian. > > Yes, I was reading the amd64 version because I was also > attempting to install Debian on a 4GB and Intel Core 2 Duo vPro > desktop PC, which I thought could run Debian 10 with KDE. > > > I'd start with Debian 10 and LXDE or LxQt: > > https://opensource.com/article/19/12/lxqt-lxde-linux-desktop > > > > and switch to the Debian 9 only if they work really slow. > > Sounds reasonable, but I would prefer to not download > 4 GB of the DVD image twice, my internet connection is not so fast. > [snip] Been there. When first using Debian I was on dial-up ;} There are several vendors with Debian on various media. See: https://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ My current connection is faster (via cellular network) and my service has a 2GB/month data cap. I am currently using http://www.linuxcollections.com/products/debian/debian.htm [located in California, USA] I purchase a USB stick with all 16 DVDs of a release. They also offer DVD#1 for each processor and a live DVD for a desktop for selected processor. For clearer description see https://linuxcollections.com/products/debian/debianusb.htm HTH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BR6UO-68E-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232671 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> Been there. When first using Debian I was on dial-up ;} > There are several vendors with Debian on various media. > See: https://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ > > My current connection is faster (via cellular network) and my service has a 2GB/month data cap. > I am currently using > http://www.linuxcollections.com/products/debian/debian.htm > [located in California, USA] > > I purchase a USB stick with all 16 DVDs of a release. > They also offer DVD#1 for each processor and a live DVD for a desktop for selected processor. > For clearer description see > https://linuxcollections.com/products/debian/debianusb.htm > > HTH I think that buying DVDs is not my option. Thanks for the suggestion anyway, sounds like a good idea if I had the opportunity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BR7xv-6nV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232631 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Ma, 09 mar 21, 20:00:15, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > > I'd start with Debian 10 and LXDE or LxQt: > > https://opensource.com/article/19/12/lxqt-lxde-linux-desktop > > > > and switch to the Debian 9 only if they work really slow. > > Sounds reasonable, but I would prefer to not download > 4 GB of the DVD image twice, my internet connection is not so fast. It's more efficient to use the netinstall image instead, which is significantly smaller. You can still select which Desktop Environment (if any to install) and it will download the needed packages during install. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQTXz-6tt-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232606 |
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:30:15 -0400
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to GNU/Linux systems. I would like to know
> why the RAM requirements showed here:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch03s04.en.html
> are double the size of those displayed here:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/ch03s04.html.en
Curious. You seem to have hit two different version of the same page,
with one change.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, I have a bit old laptop and I don't know if it
> would be better
> to have Debian 9 so I can, possibly, load KDE on it, or instead
> Debian 10 but having to limit myself to lightweight applications only.
Tell us more about your laptop. Have you tried booting a Debian live CD
on it?
I have a Lenovo R51, with 1.2 GB of physical memory, and it runs at an
acceptable pace. However, I use XFCE rather than KDE. It is a much
lighter weight desktop and that helps in a constrained environment. You
might consider that.
I have four FIT-PC 1s, each with 223Mi of main memory, and they do just
fine headerless (with no desk-top). So you should be able to safely
undershoot the higher requirement version.
I recommend against Debian 9, as it is getting old. I generally
recommend keeping to the current Debian release for security reasons.
root@dragon:~# free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 1.2Gi 306Mi 142Mi 6.0Mi 803Mi 771Mi
Swap: 975Mi 4.0Mi 971Mi
Total: 2.2Gi 311Mi 1.1Gi
root@dragon:~#
>
> Anyway, thanks in advance for any help you could give me.
>
> PS: If I'm not using the mailing list properly, let me know,
> I never used any before.
You are doing fine so far.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-10 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BQUgW-6Ai-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #232617 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> Tell us more about your laptop. Have you tried booting a Debian live CD > on it? Well, my laptop is an Acer Aspire One D255E, it has 1GB of RAM and an Intel Atom Inside N455 with Intel GMA integrated. > I recommend against Debian 9, as it is getting old. I generally > recommend keeping to the current Debian release for security reasons. Hmm, I thought that Debian 9 received enough security updates, and it still have LTS and ELTS remaining. I don't think it is older than Windows 7 (from 2007, if I remember well) > root@dragon:~# free -h > total used free shared buff/cache available > Mem: 1.2Gi 306Mi 142Mi 6.0Mi 803Mi 771Mi > Swap: 975Mi 4.0Mi 971Mi > Total: 2.2Gi 311Mi 1.1Gi > root@dragon:~# It doesn't look bad at all. Windows usually have 100MiB to 200MiB free when there are some programs open.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web