Hi, On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:01 -0700, Curtis Vaughan wrote: > I remember sometime at the end of last year reading that KDE uses > less resources than Gnome. After reading that I had to install linux > on an older machine for someone, so I put KDE on it. It worked OK. > > Now I get the latest Linux Journal and they say in there than Gnome > uses less resources.
Both desktops have been making huge strides lately in performance and what not. I hadn't used GNOME/KDE in about a year, but I have given the 1.8 release a whirl and it does seem a lot snappier. > I tried to remember what it was that I had read about KDE and began > to think, well maybe it wasn't that KDE used less resources overall > but that it used less ROM or something. Doesn't matter. My question > then is, given an older machine that KDE or Gnome can run on, which > should I install to get better performance? I still think GNOME/KDE (despite their improvements) are a little bit too fat for older systems w/out much ram... it's certainly not very groovy on my old 256M laptop. I generally use openbox, but if you're looking for something similar to gnome/kde maybe you could try out XFCE. Like GNOME, it uses the Gtk to render widgets. It was a lot more responsive on the old Sun boxes at school than the other desktop environments I tried. Good luck, Cameron Matheson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
