Re: Gome 2 questions
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 18:25, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:39:12AM -0400, stan wrote:
> > However, I must say that my first impressions of Gnome 2 are that it is much
> > more limited that Gnome 1. For instance I've got a nice analog style clock on
> > my panel in Gnome 1, and the only choice in Gnome 2 seems to be this huge
> > digital thing that uses 10% of the panel space. Also the CD player seems to
> > take up much more space. Some other things re the moving of the icon for
> > the man menu to the upper left from the lower left.
> >
> > Am I missing something important here, or are there less choices in how I
> > set up Gnome 2 than Gnome 1? If this is correct, is it because the Gnome 2
> > code is not as mature as Gnome 1 or???
>
> No, you're not missing anything, 2 really is less configurable. And no,
> I don't think it's because GNOME 2 isn't mature - I think it's an
> intentional design decision, and a bad one. I think 2.0/2.2 is a huge
> steps backwards in usability from 1.4, and even 1.4 was a step backwards
> from 1.0.
>
> metacity is particularly offensive, its description is a "lightweight"
> window manager - too bad it's lightweight on functionality and usability
> instead of resource consumption.
So I'm not the only one to notice that GNOME2.2+Metacity is RAM
hungry? (Really , I think it's just because of memory leaks.
When you 1st fire it up, RAM usage is fine.)
gnome-terminal 2.2.1 is pretty hoggish, too. With only 1 term
window open, it uses 4MB RAM (not including the 6MB SHR.)
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| An ad currently being run by the NEA (the US's biggest |
| public school TEACHERS UNION) asks a teenager if he can |
| find sodium and *chloride* in the periodic table of the |
| elements. |
| And they wonder why people think public schools suck... |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: