3 ms·

Not only they removed everything randomly (just a few things that I remember: terminal transparency/background, search on the local directory on nautilus, zoom

Not only they removed everything randomly (just a few things that I remember: terminal transparency/background, search on the local directory on nautilus, zoom on gnome shell) but it is still one of the most heavy DEs (the new KDE is surprisingly light) somehow when even my DWM has more features. Sadly I have only 8GB of ram and I want to run more programs than just the gnome shell (which takes as much memory as the average electron application). As for gtk, they still have not merged the patch for thumbnails in the open file dialog.

pantaloony 6y ago
> gnome shell (which takes as much memory as the average electron application). I don't know a ton about it but I assume gnome-shell is where all the JS (which I gather is a huge thing in Gnome now) runs, judging from how crashy and resource-gobbling it is. > the new KDE is surprisingly light I had a strong aversion to KDE because I never liked how it made non-K* apps feel out-of-place, and I prefer almost none of the K* apps to other (largely GTK) alternatives, plus it used to be (talking many years ago) far heavier both in feel/performance and compile time than Gnome, but yeah, that's what I've switched to, and it performs far better. "Foreign" apps no longer feel as out-of-place as they used to and with some tweaking I don't hate the appearance. What they've done to Gnome is so bizarre. I even kinda like the look & feel but damn, it's way too big a pig to be always-on on my machine.
- qalmakka 6y ago
  KDE went from being a resource hog (~2009) to working somewhat fine on the Raspberry Pi 4 and on old machines. Meanwhile, GNOME Shell lags on my somewhat high end computer and the solution everyone told me was to "disable animations". GNOME 2 with Beryl and the cheap "burning windows" effects actually felt more polished and ran smoother than the burning heap of rubbish GNOME 3 has become, honestly.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    KDE 4 on opensuse back in 2011 felt lighter than xp for me at least (It worked fine on a laptop with sis graphics, intel Pentium M, and 1.5GB ram). It was around the time that gnome 3 was released I think and when I tried it I immediately was greeted with an error message about lacking graphics acceleration.

pantaloony 6y ago

> gnome shell (which takes as much memory as the average electron application). I don't know a ton about it but I assume gnome-shell is where all the JS (which I gather is a huge thing in Gnome now) runs, judging from how crashy and resource-gobbling it is. > the new KDE is surprisingly light I had a strong aversion to KDE because I never liked how it made non-K* apps feel out-of-place, and I prefer almost none of the K* apps to other (largely GTK) alternatives, plus it used to be (talking many years ago) far heavier both in feel/performance and compile time than Gnome, but yeah, that's what I've switched to, and it performs far better. "Foreign" apps no longer feel as out-of-place as they used to and with some tweaking I don't hate the appearance. What they've done to Gnome is so bizarre. I even kinda like the look & feel but damn, it's way too big a pig to be always-on on my machine.

qalmakka 6y ago
KDE went from being a resource hog (~2009) to working somewhat fine on the Raspberry Pi 4 and on old machines. Meanwhile, GNOME Shell lags on my somewhat high end computer and the solution everyone told me was to "disable animations". GNOME 2 with Beryl and the cheap "burning windows" effects actually felt more polished and ran smoother than the burning heap of rubbish GNOME 3 has become, honestly.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  KDE 4 on opensuse back in 2011 felt lighter than xp for me at least (It worked fine on a laptop with sis graphics, intel Pentium M, and 1.5GB ram). It was around the time that gnome 3 was released I think and when I tried it I immediately was greeted with an error message about lacking graphics acceleration.