Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 14:10 UTC, submitted by TuxJournal.net
Window Managers We're all pretty much versed in the worlds of GNOME, KDE, and to a lesser degree, Xfce, and while there are lots of alternatives, none of the smaller ones really seem to gain much traction beyond their fans. An exception is LXDE, a small and resource efficient desktop environment.
Thread beginning with comment 370069
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by flynn
by qunying on Wed 24th Jun 2009 16:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by flynn"
qunying
Member since:
2008-06-04

I just gave up. I use Gnome now and frankly don't care about its 'bloat'. On a modern computer it does not feel slow at all, and the while it uses up more ram, I have oodles of it to spare. What was the point of buying 4 gigs of ram if I'm not going to use it? With 4 gigs of ram available the difference between a 50 mb DE and a 200 mb DE really starts to become minuscule.


I think is this kind of tolerance of the user that leads to developer care less to develop more efficient application. Saying go to get a more powerful cpu and more ram and you would get smooth experience is not the right way to solve problem. And that is why after so many years of hardware improvement, we still experience more or less the same speed feeling on desktop usage.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by flynn
by FooBarWidget on Wed 24th Jun 2009 20:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by flynn"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"I think is this kind of tolerance of the user that leads to developer care less to develop more efficient application. Saying go to get a more powerful cpu and more ram and you would get smooth experience is not the right way to solve problem. And that is why after so many years of hardware improvement, we still experience more or less the same speed feeling on desktop usage."

Which totally makes sense considering how expensive development time is compared to hardware costs. I can write an app in C in 200 hours and spend another 100 optimizing it to death. But why should I if I can also spend $40 on a hardware upgrade, and write the app in Python in 60 hours, which still performs acceptably?

A lot of people complain about this increase in "bloat", but I call it lowering development costs at the expense of increase resource usage. Considering that computers are meant to serve humans it makes total sense.

You may argue that open source software is free, so there's no "development costs". This is not true: the developer of said software may have invested tremendous amounts of time, which are also costs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by flynn
by ggeldenhuys on Wed 24th Jun 2009 22:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by flynn"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

And that is why after so many years of hardware improvement, we still experience more or less the same speed feeling on desktop usage.

I can't agree more. I am a commercial and open source software developer. I am disgusted with the amount of bloat-ware out there! Our current computers could give us 100x the speed improvement with more optimized applications.

Just look at MS Windows for example: Win95 installed in less than 100MB of hard drive space. Win98 around 160MB, Win2000 around 200-300MB, Vista 4-8GIG, Win7 around 15GIG. It's totally ridiculous!!! It's just sloppy coding!

I take pride in my code and try to optimize all my applications using my preferred programming language. After all, I became a programmer because I enjoy doing it - and doing it well.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by flynn
by gavin.mccord on Thu 25th Jun 2009 11:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by flynn"
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

[Sigh]

I remember installing Slackware on machines with a 500M partition 10 years ago to edit photos and otherwise show off.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by flynn
by Morgan on Thu 25th Jun 2009 13:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by flynn"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Just look at MS Windows for example: Win95 installed in less than 100MB of hard drive space. Win98 around 160MB, Win2000 around 200-300MB, Vista 4-8GIG, Win7 around 15GIG. It's totally ridiculous!!! It's just sloppy coding!


Are you giving your own experiences or just quoting the hardware requirements? Particularly regarding Vista and 7, you are way off. Vista Ultimate is indeed in the 4-8GB range, though if I remember correctly it is on the low end, around 5.5GB last time I set it up for someone; nowhere near 8GB. Windows 7, which I have on a partition on my main PC (and am posting from now) was roughly 6GB after installation. Also, you skipped XP entirely, which depending on the included service pack can vary from about 1GB to nearly 2GB in my experience.

You do have a valid point, but don't go making up numbers to "prove" it.

Note: I'm not a Microsoft apologist by any stretch of the imagination, it just irks me to no end to see someone make up bullshit to prove a point. Windows 7 is on my main PC because the rest of the family requires Windows (for now; I'm working on that) and it's free for a year. I'm enjoying testing it out too; it's really the best thing they've ever put out there in my opinion. For my own computing I prefer OS X, BeOS or Slackware.

Reply Parent Score: 2