gnome 2 performance

kraylus · l33t Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 648 Location: ft.worth.tx

i have a p233 w/ 128mb RAM and a 8mb vid card.

would gnome2 run well under that? i ask because i read at the gnome site that gnome 2 has cleaner code and all that stuff so should have better performance with gnome. i ran gnome 1.2(?) on this box awhile ago and it wasn't bad at all.

hehe, prolly not, but all the screenshots are making me drool. im using fluxbox at the moment and it's hella fast. im willing to take a performance hit as long as it isn't similar to the performance hit i got when trying to run XP RC1 (partly due to the bugginess) on this machine....

(i tweaked win2k enough to run on this machine with half the system RAM and half the video RAM and enough room to play Unreal Tourney/HL-Counter-Strike w/ my voodoo2)

thanks

ryan
_________________
I used gentoo BEFORE it was cool.

jezza · n00b Joined: 09 Jun 2002 Posts: 16 Location: Essex, UK

I dunno your proc sounds a bit wimpy

, and 128MB RAM would be pushing it. I wouldn't want to wait around for Gnome 2 to emerge on that box, go with Fluxbox, ok so it doesn't have all the eye candy but thats my point who needs it???? It'll be no better than KDE3 in that respect, plus you'll have more memory to speed up all those emerges.

mmm emerge emerge mmm
/me goes on emerging random interesting looking software

Jezza

kraylus · l33t Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 648 Location: ft.worth.tx

it's not just the eyecandy that im after, it's the functionality. im much more comfortable with a gnome environment than i am with fluxbox. there are things missing that i've come to depend on (e.g. a fully functional taskbar for starters).

the eye candy is just a bonus! but i want to know if the eyecandy is going to cause a performance hit.

ryan
_________________
I used gentoo BEFORE it was cool.

S_aIN_t · Guru Joined: 11 May 2002 Posts: 488 Location: Ottawa

if you want functionality and eyecandy is not important i would recommend using something like fluxbox or blackbox. simply running gnome looks like a big waste of resources to me. but it is your call.. \

if you like it enough and it runs fast enough for you why not use it?

mudfly · Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2002 1:21 am Post subject:

I ran garnome on a Dell Latitude that was close to but lesser then your specs and it ran great. At least as good as gnome 1.4 anyway. I say give it a shot what have you got to lose? Gnome 2 rocks.

jezza · n00b Joined: 09 Jun 2002 Posts: 16 Location: Essex, UK

I'd guess that a 233Mhz GNOME 2 box is going to be laggy, but acceptable. One thing you can do under KDE3 is to turn on/off all the superfluous eye candy/anti aliasing, maybe GNOME 2 has similar options.

I'm still messing with Fluxbox, its quite a depature from KDE3.

Good luck with it

Jeremy.

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

you may want to give enlightenment a try, especial e17

Sivar · Apprentice Joined: 25 May 2002 Posts: 266 Location: USA

kraylus · l33t Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 648 Location: ft.worth.tx

there, ya see? thats what i was looking for

thanks for that, man

to the guy who recommended fluxbox for functionality... i have to agree and disagree. yes fluxbox has some nice features, but it's missing alot of what i've becom comfortable with. should read my post again, perhaps

anyhoo, dont get me wrong. i love fluxbox. i think it's great. to those who were saying "just go for it, what have you got to lose"... well, alot of time. see, gnome 2 will take quite a bit of time to compile on a p233

to the person who recommended e16. blech. i used to like enlightenment, but the more i used it the more i began to DISlike it. especially the iconbox. e17 i'd try, but it sounds like too much of a pain in the ass to install

i'll wait for the ebuild.

gnome2 here i come!

ryan
_________________
I used gentoo BEFORE it was cool.