Linked by Flavio Villanustre on Sun 4th Sep 2005 17:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 27511
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
I can't imagine how you run anything in 128MB of RAM. I just rebooted for the first time in a couple months because all of my memory (256MB) and all of my swap (512MB) were entirely consumed. Now let's take a look at my RSS numbers. The top 3 are Firefox, X, and Thunderbird in that order, taking up 108 MB in total. Comparitively, GNOME is not memory intensive. The only major problem I notice is about 56 MB used by my modest array of panel applets (weather, battery, system monitor, clock, and volume). Gnome-terminal is pretty heavy, but not too bad.
The problem isn't the desktop environments: it's Firefox, Thunderbird, and X. Evolution is way more memory hungry than Thunderbird. Epiphany consumes about 25% less than Firefox.
Linux systems are developing a bulging memory problem, albeit not as bad as MacOSX or Windows Vista. I remember when Phoenix really was a fast, memory efficient browser. What happened?