19 replies to this topic

[raymac46]

I have fooled around a bit with Gnome 3 as it apparently will be the version of Gnome that will be standard in Mageia 2.0. It doesn't really turn my crank but I think I could get used to it in time.
What bothers me though is that Gnome 3 apparently demands twice the memory footprint of Gnome 2. I have been using Mageia and Mandriva for a while on older machines for people who have them and want to try Linux. But it's looking as if some version of Xfce will be the solution for these machines going forward. My choices right now are Xubuntu or Linux Mint Xfce.
It really amazes me how both Gnome and KDE have now succeeded in turning off many of their long time supporters with "upgrades" to their desktops.

[lewmur]

I have fooled around a bit with Gnome 3 as it apparently will be the version of Gnome that will be standard in Mageia 2.0. It doesn't really turn my crank but I think I could get used to it in time.
What bothers me though is that Gnome 3 apparently demands twice the memory footprint of Gnome 2. I have been using Mageia and Mandriva for a while on older machines for people who have them and want to try Linux. But it's looking as if some version of Xfce will be the solution for these machines going forward. My choices right now are Xubuntu or Linux Mint Xfce.
It really amazes me how both Gnome and KDE have now succeeded in turning off many of their long time supporters with "upgrades" to their desktops.

I think there is a tendency to lump "update" and "upgrade" together when they shouldn't be.  Most distros have what are known as LTS (Long Term Support) versions that are "updated" regularly but don't add all of the "new features" an "upgrade" will.  These "new features" are typically meant for "new hardware" and often won't work at all or are so "resource intensive" that the overwhelm older hardware.

I, personally, like to "check out" the "latest and greatest" distros, but I'd never put one on someone else's computer.  And I always put new distros on as a second or third choice in my boot options until I'm satisfied I'm ready to use it as my day-to-day distro.

So, IMO, it makes sense of newer distros to pay little heed to the extra "footprint" required by Gnome3 when it is intended to run on boxes with high end graphics processors, multi core CPUs and gobs of RAM.  I think they assume that people with older boxes or netbooks with single core processors, are going to choose one of the lighter GUI's anyway.

I like Gnome 2 better than 3 but that is probably 'cause I'm "set in my ways" and don't like to change.  But my quad core rig with 8gb of RAM wouldn't even notice the extra "footprint" of Gnome 3.  And I don't even run Gnome 2 on my netbook.  

[securitybreach]

Well I know Gnome 3 is a bit bloated but it runs smooth on my HP Touchpad and it only has 1gb of ram so it can be stripped down.

[raymac46]

But my quad core rig with 8gb of RAM wouldn't even notice the extra "footprint" of Gnome 3. And I don't even run Gnome 2 on my netbook.

Wouldn't bother me either, but most folks I help have older hardware. Right now I'm trying to decide what to do for a guy running Mandriva 2009 Gnome on a laptop that's about 8 years old and has maybe 512 MB RAM tops. I doubt he has the 3D acceleration  necessary for Gnome 3.
My netbook is very happy with Bodhi Linux so that might also be a possibility for my friend's older laptop.

[lewmur]

Wouldn't bother me either, but most folks I help have older hardware. Right now I'm trying to decide what to do for a guy running Mandriva 2009 Gnome on a laptop that's about 8 years old and has maybe 512 MB RAM tops. I doubt he has the 3D acceleration  necessary for Gnome 3.
My netbook is very happy with Bodhi Linux so that might also be a possibility for my friend's older laptop.

I agree.  Bodhi is what I use on my netbook and it should be fine on older hardware.  As I said, I think Gnome 3 is meant newer desktop boxes.  No one distro can be all things to all boxes.

[lewmur]

Well I know Gnome 3 is a bit bloated but it runs smooth on my HP Touchpad and it only has 1gb of ram so it can be stripped down.

Yeah, but your TP, like mine, has a dual core processor, modern graphics and can be overclocked to 1.7ghz.  

[raymac46]

I agree.  Bodhi is what I use on my netbook and it should be fine on older hardware.  As I said, I think Gnome 3 is meant newer desktop boxes.  No one distro can be all things to all boxes.

You're right. We don't expect that just because a box runs Windows XP it's going to run Windows 8 with all the bells and whistles. I guess I should be happy that there are still lots of options available in Linux for the older hardware.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I believe that both KDE 4 and Gnome 3 were in answer to MS Windows' cool Aero eye candy desktop in Vista. And as we all know, more bells and whistles means more resource usage. That should be fine, though, with today's massive RAM on most newer systems. Personally, I don't need all that spiffy eye candy. I prefer that it just works. Just my opinion...

[securitybreach]

Yeah, but your TP, like mine, has a dual core processor, modern graphics and can be overclocked to 1.7ghz.  

Yeah but can you overclock the processor in Linux yet?

I know what you mean though, I have mine OCd to 1.8ghz.

[crp]

it wasn't the bloat I disliked but the interface .
I uninstalled the GNOME and put in KDE. Much happier

[ichase]

I have to second the recommendation for Bodhi on older laptops.  I have Bodhi running on an OLD Toshiba Satelite Laptop. 1.9 Ghz Celeron Processor, 30 gig HDD with 512 Ram (maxed out).  This lappy even has a built in floppy drive.    It does not have built in wireless but I use a USB wireless dongle and Bodhi detected it with no problem.
And believe it or not, it runs pretty darn fast.  Don't know how they did it, but Jeff and his crew set this up great to work on really old hardware.

[BillD]

Eric:

Personally, I don't need all that spiffy eye candy. I prefer that it just works. Just my opinion...

Likewise!

crp:

it wasn't the bloat I disliked but the interface. I uninstalled the GNOME and put in KDE

Yes, KDE 4.6 is OK once you get used to it, but the only OS I have tried it on is PCLinuxOS and for some reason that OS is not acceptable to me for the simple reason that Thunderbird is incredibly slow on it compared with Ubuntu and Mint . . . it can take 20 seconds to make connection and start downloading any messages.

ichase:

I have to second the recommendation for Bodhi on older laptops.

Yes, I would third that; I have an elderly Compaq laptop that works great with it, and it found the Broadcom wi-fi with no problems.  My only real beef with Bodhi is that I cannot put stuff on the desktop like I want.

Bill

Edited by BillD, 08 February 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[ichase]

My only real beef with Bodhi is that I cannot put stuff on the desktop like I want.

What kind of "stuff" are you not able to put on the desktop Bill?

[saturnian]

I believe that both KDE 4 and Gnome 3 were in answer to MS Windows' cool Aero eye candy desktop in Vista. And as we all know, more bells and whistles means more resource usage. That should be fine, though, with today's massive RAM on most newer systems. Personally, I don't need all that spiffy eye candy. I prefer that it just works. Just my opinion...

Yeah, I only have 2 GB RAM on my two machines; no problem with either KDE 4 or GNOME 3, and some of my co-workers laugh about my having only 2 GB RAM. I guess that isn't much these days.

But I don't see GNOME Shell as an "eye-candy" type of thing; just a different way of doing things. I took to GNOME Shell quite easily, and I'm a guy who enjoys using Openbox, Xfce, AwesomeWM, etc. I tried several of the GNOME Shell extensions that I guess are there mainly for people who want it to look more like GNOME 2, but I ended up removing or disabling almost all of them, preferring to use GNOME Shell pretty much as it was designed, I suppose. I think it's a great environment, but obviously not everyone agrees.  

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I have 4Gig on my main system, 4Gig on my shop system, and 2Gig on my laptop. I've never even come close to using /swap in all the time I've run GNU/Linux operating systems on my machines. Years ago, when running 512Meg, I did max out in Windows a few times. Today though, even in Win 7 on the laptop, I don't come near to using even 1/2 the available RAM.

We've come along way in terms of drive space and RAM over the past decade.

Oh, and I can't really say anything negative about Gnome 3. I've never had any experience with it.

[saturnian]

I have 4Gig on my main system, 4Gig on my shop system, and 2Gig on my laptop.

Dang. I'm living in the stone ages.  

Well, some folks tell me I should try using Cinnamon, Linux Mint's GNOME Shell fork. I'm thinking it's just an attempt to make GNOME 3 look like GNOME 2. That's a great idea, I think, for folks who don't like GNOME 3. I've seen instructions for adding Cinnamon to Fedora 16, but I haven't tried it yet. Well, for someone who's happy with GNOME Shell, there's probably no reason to use Cinnamon.

The spice, on the other hand... mmm.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

...for someone who's happy with GNOME Shell, there's probably no reason to use Cinnamon.

The spice, on the other hand... mmm.

Yes, a must for your toast in the morning.

[raymac46]

I have a test system that used to belong to my late parents. It's a 2004 era whitebox with an Athlon 2100+, 2 GB of RAM and an Nvidia 6200 AGP card. (Yes I did some upgrades.)
Anyhow I installed Xubuntu on this machine and it runs great. I've been playing around with icons and panels and I think I have figured out how to do the basics with Xfce.
This old desktop is definitely a more powerful system than my friend's aging laptop but it seems that Xubuntu is light on resources so I could probably introduce him to Xfce this way.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Xfce is Xfce is Xfce. It's pretty much the same regardless of distro. If he's more comfy with an Ubuntu-based distro, go for it.

[crp]

well Ubuntu could not care less about the bloating