Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 06 November 2010: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +0000, Bruce Cran wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700 > > Chip Camden <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is > > > much more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of > > > running Windows when all you need is FreeBSD. > > > > I'm not sure that's true, actually. FreeBSD by itself may be a lot more > > lightweight than Windows but once you add in Xorg and KDE I think it > > needs about the same, if not more, memory. People will argue that you > > don't have to run KDE or GNOME but as can be seen from the success of > > Ubuntu people like complete desktop environments. > > Well, there's your problem -- you're using Windows Lite (KDE). > > Anyway, it appears to be fairly reliably reported that KDE and > (especially now) GNOME still run lighter than the whole MS Windows GUI, > even if they're much heavier than other options. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
I'm using FBSD xith Xorg sans KDE or GNOME quite productively. And with everything running that I normally need, I use less than 1GB out of the 4GB available -- less than 300MB on boot. Windows 7 wants the a whole GB just to start up, or it's painfully slow. Actually, it's painfully slow anyway -- and furthermore it imposes that pain on guest OSes as well. What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | [email protected] | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com | http://chipsquips.com
pgpQ1riXd5Yvf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
