[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian on ancient machines



On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 15:46 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:36:31 -0600
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On 02/23/07 09:39, Celejar wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:39:46 -0500
> > > Matthew K Poer <matthewpoer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 13:19 -0500, Michael Pobega wrote:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > [snip]
> > > course Xfce-Terminal (with about a half dozen tabs generally open).
> > 
> > Using rxvt would save you a load of RES memory.
> 
> Thanks, I'm going to look into rxvt. Right now, 'firefox-bin' (IW)
> processes have 38m RES (2 tabs open -
> http://gentoo-wiki.com/FAQ_Linux_Memory_Management and
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1445 :) ), Sylpheed has 14m, Xorg has
> 11m, Xfce-terminal has 10m, about 8 - 10 entries have between 5 - 10m,
> followed by bash processes between 1.9 - 2m. free reports 70m used, and
> the system isn't swapping. Since it rarely does (192m total), I've
> never been too concerned about memory usage, but I suppose I'm geeky
> enough to believe in squeezing out all the efficiency I can, even
> though I'm not enough of a geek to have ever written firmware or put
> together a circuit board :)
> 
> Celejar
> 
> -- 
> ssuds.sourceforge.net - Home of Ssuds and Ssudg, a Simple Sudoku Solver
> and Generator

I'm giving rxvt a try, too. Seems pretty quick. I like it.

I swap pretty badly running Gnome with only 192mb. Esp. when I have
Evolution open. But I *need* calender and email functionality, and
Evolution handles it really, really well. If there were a stand-alone
calender that worked well, I would use sylpheed or something less
resource-intensive. Any advice?

I can't wait until I upgrade. I need to back some stuff up, but when I
do: I'm getting Etch and Xfce. I want a lighter desktop, but I don't
want to install it on top of all my Gnome and such. It's too much to
worry about right now.
-- 
Matthew K Poer



Reply to: