Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Feb 2008 21:58 UTC, submitted by Vincent
Thread beginning with comment 300414
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.
No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.
Consider that the last version of enlightenment is considerably faster than just xfwm4 alone while having ten times as eye candy. And I don't consider enlightenment a good example of "conservative design".
No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.
In my humble opinion I agree. Canonical should move their attention from Xubuntu to Fluxbuntu. I tried Xubuntu 7.04 on system equipped with Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM and old PCI Virge DX card. Result was disastrous. Even XP was a little bit faster on that system.






Member since:
2007-07-25
You are taking a comparison in performance between Xubuntu and Windows Vista and concluding that Windows XP is "more responsive". Well.. there are probably hundreds of OSes out there which performs better than XP, so if it's just about saving ressources, why don't you just jump onto one of those?