On 10/03/2021 07:23, "Felix Miata" <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Felix Miata composed on 2021-03-10 05:33 (UTC-0500):
>
> > Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> I have been reading throughout the Web
> >> that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before.
> >> Apparently, its performance is comparable to that of KDE
> >> or GNOME.
>
> > This may be where that came from:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk>
>
> > Here's a simple look at RAM before and after first launching IceWM, then
> > rebooting, then a freshly installed Plasma session on an old single core PC that
> > had had only KDE3 and IceWM on TW.
>
> > # inxi -CGIMy
> > Machine:
> > Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex GX280 v: N/A serial: 20HRT71
> > Mobo: Dell model: N/A serial: .. . BIOS: Dell v: A07 date: 11/29/2005
> > CPU:
> > Info: Single Core model: Intel Pentium 4 bits: 32 type: MCP L2 cache: 1024 KiB
> > Speed: 2793 MHz min/max: N/A Core speed (MHz): 1: 2793
> > Graphics:
> > Device-1: Intel 82915G/GV/910GL Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
> > Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: intel
> > unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa resolution: 1680x1050~60Hz
> > OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915G x86/MMX/SSE2 v: 1.4 Mesa 20.3.4
> > Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
>
> > # free # before launching startx into IceWM
> > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > Mem: 1525408 51264 1313580 1552 160564 1293900
> > Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> > # free # after launching startx into IceWM and Xterm
> > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > Mem: 1525408 71732 1213716 14980 239960 1259048
> > Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> > 20468 used by IceWM
> > # inxi -Sy
> > System:
> > Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
> > Desktop: IceWM 2.1.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
> >
> > I rebooted before launching Plasma and Konsole on the same PC:
> > # free # before launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
> > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > Mem: 1525568 51536 1305632 8444 168400 1286812
> > Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> > # free # after launching startx into virgin Plasma installation
> > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > Mem: 1525568 188264 899976 51360 437328 1103940
> > Swap: 1036156 0 1036156
> > 136728
> > # inxi -Sy
> > System:
> > Host: gx28b Kernel: 5.7.11-1-default i686 bits: 32
> > Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
>
> > No, it's not Debian. I never put Plasma on my Debians, which all use TDE. This was
> > a freshly updated Tumbleweed, so the Plasma version is fresh. There's no XFCE on
> > it. It won't be added either, as there's nothing about it I like better than KDE3,
> > TDE or Plasma, and the disk has no room for more additions, worthwhile or
> > otherwise. Thus, the difference between XFCE and Plasma or IceWM will need a
> > different PC.
>
> > The point is, Plasma can be rather lean, using only 116260 more than IceWM to get
> > a basic session started.
>
> The following isn't directly comparable to the above, as the Plasma installation
> and user are anything but fresh. However, it is a minimal, and started up in same
> manner, just on 64 bits instead of 32, and the same Plasma version on the same OS
> release, with 270996 instead of 136728 used to start a session:
>
> # fresh boot to multi-user before startx into Plasma & Konsole
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 3934880 92840 3612164 9912 229876 3601836
> Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
> # after startx into Plasma & Konsole
> total used free shared buff/cache available
> Mem: 3934880 363836 3040312 75688 530732 3250656
> Swap: 4200428 0 4200428
> 270996 used by Plasma & Konsole
> # inxi -CGIMSy
> System:
> Host: gx745 Kernel: 5.10.16-1-default x86_64 bits: 64
> Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.21.1 Distro: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20210307
> Machine:
> Type: Desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex 745 v: N/A serial: 901DSC1
> Mobo: Dell model: 0GX297 serial: ..CN6986173Q1835. BIOS: Dell v: 2.6.2
> date: 08/12/2008
> CPU:
> Info: Dual Core model: Intel Core2 6700 bits: 64 type: MCP L2 cache: 4 MiB
> Speed: 1715 MHz min/max: N/A Core speeds (MHz): 1: 1715 2: 2105
> Graphics:
> Device-1: Intel 82Q963/Q965 Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
> Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.10 driver: loaded: modesetting
> unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1920x1200~60Hz
> OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 965Q (BW) v: 2.1 Mesa 20.3.4
> Info:...Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.01
>
> This CPU is one year older than the thread OP's Conroe 2.33GHz E6550,
> a Conroe 2.67GHz E6700.
>
> Another difference I expected was that though both are on Dells using integrated
> Intel video, the shared RAM used by video likely was more on the 64 bit, because
> of the difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 displays used. the 64 only has
> DVI and VGA to choose from, and used DVI, while the 32 has the same outputs, but
> it's display only has VGA and DisplayPort, so had to use VGA. So, I retested the
> 32 with the other display and VGA instead of DVI. Used only went from 188264 to
> 188844, +580. :P
> --
> Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
> is based on faith, not on science.
>
> Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
>
> Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
I'm new to mailing lists. I didn't now you could link threads (it is threads, right?).
Then, let me add another one here.
Hmm, is the RAM expressed in kilobytes? It looks very lightweight.
Even more that the results published at Forbes.
Could it run then with an Intel Atom N455 and just 1 GB of RAM?
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm curious. I could try it later.