How memory works
Actually, I won’t bother with another tongue-in-cheek post (even if some people detected 0% sarcasm). But following on, especially regarding the KDE is a big fat beast and GNOME is nice and lightweight debate, people should read a new comparison between the two.
Lubos Lunak has done some benchmarks regarding memory consumption. WARNING! SPOILER COMING! Well, the findings are certainly in favour of KDE, which surprised even myself. I’m not terribly worried about memory. I made sure my ‘puter was well stocked in this area when I bought it, but it’s promising to know that KDE is in fact a contender for lower-specced PCs too. Clearly the “bloat” isn’t making the difference that people expect.
One thing that got me thinking though was how much the choice of distro affects the performance of the DEs. So I intend to replicate the experiment at some point to see what’s happening on my Arch box.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Roo… Bloat is a word that’s used way too often
After all, from what I see in IRC channels (either #archlinux or ##slackware):
- Windows is bloated, use Linux
- KDE is bloated, use gnome
- Gnome is bloated, use XFCE
- XFCE is bloated, use Fluxbox
- Fluxbox is bloated, use ion
- BitchX is bloated, use irssi
- Pine is bloated, use mutt
- Everything is bloated, use telnet
September 14th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I wonder at his benchmarks.
The fact that gnome+konqueror only uses 3MB more memory than gnome+firefox, while it should require loading a considerable amount of QT libraries, and KDE libraries to boot. That ’smells funny’ to me.
I would also like to see the tests done with ‘pmap -d’, instead of exmap..since I have no idea what exmap really does.