3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoKDE 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 agoKDE 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.