jd1008 wrote:
On 10/28/2014 12:16 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2014 07:04 PM, Steven Rosenberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
>>> When I learned what Gnome 3 was going to be like, I started looking for a
>>> different DE and ended up with Xfce. One of the minor things I like about
>>> it is that you can configure it so that a right-click anywhere on the
>>> desktop brings up your main menu; no need to go to the corner of the panel.
>>> After a year working with Unity, my sister had me migrate her from Ubuntu to
>>> Xubuntu. If nothing else, try a LiveUSB with the Xfce spin; you may be
>>> pleasantly surprised because it's much less of a resource hog than
either
>>> Gnome or KDE without being minimalist.
>>
>> +1 for Xfce
>
> I got introduced to it via Fedora for arm. With ONLY 1Gb on my Cubieboard2,
> it is nice that the desktop does not eat up all your memory. Particularly
> when I am only running with a SD card (I do have sata drive builds as well).
>
> So I am more using Xfce and might even do my F21 beta on a notebook with it as
> well. Skip gnome all together on the next upgrade.
>
>
So, between xfce and lxde, which one consumes less ram?
I booted all of the FC20 Live CDs I have on hand, and I share this for your
edification:
CD RAM used MB Idle CPU
XFCE-64 204 99.[6-8]
LXDE-32 123 99.[4-6]
MATE-32 143 99.[7-9]
MATE-64 237 99.8-100
Each was booted in KVM, I opened a singe terminal, ran "top -d10" and recorded
the highest and lowest idle in one minute. Then I used free to see the RAM in
use. The CPU matters to me, when Cinnamon came out I liked it, but it used about
4% of the CPU at idle, and more if anything was updating the screen. I would
call all of these a tie on CPU, I'm tempted to call memory a tie, too, if it's
really tight the 32bit release will make some difference.
HTH
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot