Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Apr 2009 13:16 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 359423
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.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I haven't bothered to check actual difference in CPU cycles or bytes of memeory used or anything like that so I won't comment on if they're "significant". However XFCE is significantly faster than GNOME on my old laptop in many ways that do count. On things like time from login in prompt to desktop or time to launch the file browser it easily beats GNOME (and easily gets beaten by fluxbox).
XFCE 'feels' faster and more responsive than GNOME all around on older hardware. So perhaps it doesn't actually use significantly less resources, but it certainly more feels more lightweight on older hardware, and that is really all I care about.