Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Mark South <mark.south@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:43:23 +0100
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:43:20 +0000, Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:47:35 +0100, Mark South wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:41:16 +0000, Gordon wrote:
Both KDE and Gnome will run like cold treacle on a 75mhz machine - if you
want to go with a debian distro like (K)Ubuntu then you need Xubuntu and
install a lightweight window manager such as XFCE.
<hhgttg>
This must be some strange new meaning of the word "lightweight" that I
wasn't previously aware of."
</hhgttg>
Eh? XFCE takes vastly LESS system resources than either Gnome or KDE....so
it's a "lightweight" Window manager!
To make up numbers, XFCE uses a thousand times less resources than Gnome
or KDE. And several thousand times more than fluxbox, or IceWM, which are
way heavier than JWM which is far more burden than fvwm or twm.
In other wwords, "lightweight" is not absolute, it depends who's on the
other side of the scale.
See also http://thefatmanwalking.com - this guy is now a lightweight 308
pounds.
--
mark south; echo znexfbhgu2000@xxxxxxxxxxx|tr a-z n-za-m
"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic
globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
-- Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado
.
- References:
- Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: (PeteCresswell)
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Gordon
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Mark South
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Gordon
- Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Prev by Date: Re: Good browser kept under control (e.g. flash, status bar,...)?
- Next by Date: NAS or SAN? Fibre channel or iSCSI?
- Previous by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Next by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
