| |||||||||||
Painless Linux (TECHWR-L)Painless Linux (TECHWR-L)Posted Oct 25, 2002 14:34 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137)In reply to: Painless Linux (TECHWR-L) by ArmedGeek Parent article: Painless Linux (TECHWR-L) Oh, and DROP NAUTILUS. Nautilus is WAY to resource-heavy for what it provides. Are you referring to Nautilus 1.x or 2.x? The performance of 1.x was pretty bad, but I found 2.x to be much better. In general Gnome 2.0 seems to be faster than Gnome 1.4 except on slow systems. They both crawl on my P2-300, but 2.0 is snappy on my P3-933.
(Log in to post comments)
redhat 8 ships only gnome2 Posted Oct 25, 2002 23:45 UTC (Fri) by scottt (subscriber, #5028) [Link] So the parent post is apparently unhappy even with the performance of nautilus2 ,which I would agree is indeed still resource heavy for the functionality that it provides, but konqurer isn't much better in this department.Perhaps try rox filer at http://rox.sf.net ?
Painless Linux (TECHWR-L) Posted Oct 31, 2002 5:58 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] In general Gnome 2.0 seems to be faster than Gnome 1.4 except on slow systems. They both crawl on my P2-300, but 2.0 is snappy on my P3-933. Windows 3.1 was very snappy on a 486/66. If any GUI isn't snappy on a P3-933 (14x clock speed and RAM, 2.5 generations faster CPU, several generations faster graphics card, significantly faster hard disk), all I can say is, Bob help that GUI. I know that nature abhors a spare-cycle vacuum, but nowadays, there is no excuse for a GUI that doesn't respond instantly to any interaction whatsoever. Even considering 32-bit color, alpha channels, vector icons, or the rest of the long list of "improvements" to today's GUIs, none of that explains (to me) a slowdown of the magnitude we've seen in recent years.
|
|||||||||||