Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 22:29 UTC
Gnome The future of GNOME - an interesting subject. GNOME 3 has been out and about for a while, and it hasn't exactly been a smashing success. One of the efforts to take GNOME to the next level is what the team refers to as GNOME OS - but in reality, it's a set of improvements to GNOME that are just as interesting to GNOME-the-desktop-environment.
Thread beginning with comment 530531
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?

I have, and I can say with some confidence that it doesn't work at all. It takes ten minutes to start, and when it's finished starting none of the widgets respond to mouse clicks because the CPU is too busy cranking away doing nothing useful. And mind you, this is with maybe a dozen KB of swap space being used - it actually fits into 192 MB of RAM, but it's too much for the CPU and GPU.

Xfce on the other hand works fine, as does Mate. Not fast, but completely usable.

It seems to me like some developers are coding as if there's no such thing as limited processing power. Which would be okay except for the bad economy, the environmental cost of upgrades, and the untold amounts of blood, sweat, and tears that go into the manufacture of each new computer...

It's free software. What the developers do with it is their prerogative. Whether what they do is actually a good idea is an entirely different matter IMHO. Personally I hope that projects like Mate and Xfce take off like there's no tomorrow, and leave the more "modern" desktops in the dust... But that's just me.

Reply Score: 3

Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?

I have, and I can say with some confidence that it doesn't work at all. It takes ten minutes to start, and when it's finished starting none of the widgets respond to mouse clicks because the CPU is too busy cranking away doing nothing useful. And mind you, this is with maybe a dozen KB of swap space being used - it actually fits into 192 MB of RAM, but it's too much for the CPU and GPU.



I have had KDE4 working smooth on 450mhz Pentium2 just 2 years ago before I got my current system. It ran better than KDE3 or Gnome2 on my machine. I did not use desktop effects though since i had an old Radeon 8500. But I can say for me KDE4 worked smooth as butter on my PII

Reply Parent Score: 4

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

I did not use desktop effects though since i had an old Radeon 8500.

There's your reason. KDE 4 doesn't like running on low-end, shared-memory integrated graphics chipsets.

Edited 2012-08-10 13:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?


No, why would anyone? The P2 is a 15 year old CPU, it's not reasonable to expect today's desktop OS to work well, or even at all, on it.

It seems to me like some developers are coding as if there's no such thing as limited processing power


I don't think that's a conclusion you can come to based on the usability on a P2.
Today's programmers code for today's computers, not for 15 year old tech. That's how it has always been.

the environmental cost of upgrades,


I'm not sure running 15 year old technology is more environmentally friendly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

No, why would anyone? The P2 is a 15 year old CPU, it's not reasonable to expect today's desktop OS to work well, or even at all, on it.

Why is it not reasonable? As far as I can tell, the only things that have significantly changed about normal desktop functionality are
a) what's expected of multimedia applications
b) what's expected of browsers
c) what applications are expected to look like

Multimedia is optional (or doesn't have to be high definition). Eyecandy should be possible to turn off. The only really significant one IMO is browsing, thanks to all the JS-intensive websites out there.

Word processing? Printing? Rendering plain old HTML? How has that stuff changed? (Other than better language support, which even ancient machines have quite enough memory for.)


I don't think that's a conclusion you can come to based on the usability on a P2.
Today's programmers code for today's computers, not for 15 year old tech. That's how it has always been.


Point taken, but I'm not entirely sure this is a good state of affairs. The rapid "progress" of computer technology is currently driving an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe.


I'm not sure running 15 year old technology is more environmentally friendly.


Not in terms of power usage, but as I understand it it's more friendly in terms of avoiding general pollution, due to how PCs are recycled. I could be wrong though.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

"Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?


No, why would anyone? The P2 is a 15 year old CPU, it's not reasonable to expect today's desktop OS to work well, or even at all, on it.

It seems to me like some developers are coding as if there's no such thing as limited processing power


I don't think that's a conclusion you can come to based on the usability on a P2.
Today's programmers code for today's computers, not for 15 year old tech. That's how it has always been.

the environmental cost of upgrades,


I'm not sure running 15 year old technology is more environmentally friendly.
"

And what pray tell,do idoits like yourself consider to be environmentally friendly?

The crap hardware Crapple is churning out these days with non-replaceable things like batteries and other such stuff?

The Gnome Cowards refusal to allow people to actually shut off computers they are not actually using?


Stuff like this?

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?
No, why would anyone? The P2 is a 15 year old CPU, it's not reasonable to expect today's desktop OS to work well, or even at all, on it.
> It seems to me like some developers are coding as if there's no such thing as limited processing power
I don't think that's a conclusion you can come to based on the usability on a P2.
Today's programmers code for today's computers, not for 15 year old tech. That's how it has always been.

What runs fine on P2, will do well on some fairly low-powered nimble ARM machine (such "underpowered" gear seems to be in the mission statement of LXDE, for example; and BTW, it runs decently on a PII 266 that I keep around - dual, but still).

Also, consider that there are (last I checked) ~1.3 billion PCs in the world for ~2 billion users - but there are over 5 billion mobile subscribers. I guess costs, unwieldiness, energy requirements of PCs have partly something to do with that.

> the environmental cost of upgrades,
I'm not sure running 15 year old technology is more environmentally friendly.

And there's lots more to "environmentally friendly" than end-user electricity usage ...generally, considering how PCs are made (how many resources they use in the process) and disposed, it tends to be more friendly to keep running older ones as long as feasible (not talking about some always-on servers - just the usual end-user machines seeing intermittent usage)

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Ever tried KDE 4 on a Pentium II machine?


I've run KDE 4.2 or 4.3 on an Asus eeePC 701, the original one, with a 600 MHz Celeron processor and only 256 (or 512?) MB of RAM, using the crappiest Intel video chipset around. Using the plasma-netbook interface. Worked quite nicely, until an update of the Intel video driver started causing horrible screen flicker. Used it as my work "laptop" for several months to diagnose network issues onsite.

I've also run KDE 4.3 (or maybe 4.4?) on a 2.8 GHz Celeron laptop with an Ati RADEON 7000 (barely has OpenGL 1.x support). Again, using the plasma-netbook interface. This was my HTPC for several years, playing XviD files over NFS over 54 Mbps wireless in Dragon Player. Worked beautifully. Even my wife could use it.

I have, and I can say with some confidence that it doesn't work at all. It takes ten minutes to start, and when it's finished starting none of the widgets respond to mouse clicks because the CPU is too busy cranking away doing nothing useful. And mind you, this is with maybe a dozen KB of swap space being used - it actually fits into 192 MB of RAM, but it's too much for the CPU and GPU.


Me thinks you were doing something wrong, then.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

I've run KDE 4.2 or 4.3 on an Asus eeePC 701, the original one, with a 600 MHz Celeron processor and only 256 (or 512?) MB of RAM, using the crappiest Intel video chipset around...

I keep hearing stuff like this, and I keep not understanding it. KDE 4 is slow to start and slow to run on my Eee 1005HAB, with a gig of RAM and a dual-core CPU. Kubuntu, OpenSuSE, Fedora, whatever... Default configurations or otherwise, all are quite sluggish.

Needless to say, I would very much like to know how you managed to get KDE 4 in a usable state on a machine with a 600 MHz processor.

Reply Parent Score: 3