Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 20 of 20
I do agree that KDE is nicer looking but but even on a high end machine its taking resources your other apps (if you running some server or developer stuff) ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    flw
    flw is offline
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,025

    I do agree that KDE is nicer looking but but even on a high end machine its taking resources your other apps (if you running some server or developer stuff) .
    Dan

    \"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer\" from The Art of War by Sun Tzu\"

  2. #12
    Linux Guru sarumont's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    3,682
    KDE is definately a WM for looks. It's functionality and speed are great on a decent machine, but it has a lot of eye-candy. I can't help but wonder, though, how well it would run on an older machine with all the eye-candy turned off?
    "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
    ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  3. #13
    Linux Engineer kriss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar
    I installed RH 9 on a PC for a mate the other day, 400Mhz with 160GB ram.
    Jason
    Heh, typo right? :P

  4. #14
    Linux Guru sarumont's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    3,682
    No way, Kriss. J's just got some really 1337 friends.
    "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
    ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  5. #15
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,284
    no thats correct.

    is 192MB ram, but the video card shares the 192, leaving 160 available to the OS.

    Jason

  6. #16
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB CANADA
    Posts
    496
    J, I think Kriss was pointing out the fact you said 160GB...

  7. #17
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,284
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperTop
    J, I think Kriss was pointing out the fact you said 160GB...
    DOH!

    i actually ment MB...

    Bit of a typo, not that i would object to 160 Gigabytes of RAM...

    Jason

  8. #18
    flw
    flw is offline
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,025
    is 192MB ram, but the video card shares the 192, leaving 160 available to the OS.
    You had a video card with no RAM? Was it an old system or some odd ball PC?
    Dan

    \"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer\" from The Art of War by Sun Tzu\"

  9. #19
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,284
    Quote Originally Posted by fastlanwan
    is 192MB ram, but the video card shares the 192, leaving 160 available to the OS.
    You had a video card with no RAM? Was it an old system or some odd ball PC?
    The video card shares the system memory.

    "onboard VGA" i think its call nowadays

    Jason

  10. #20
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB CANADA
    Posts
    496
    I had an old Compaq Presario that 'stole' 4MB from the system ram for the integrated vid card to use. Same thing - no onboard memory.
    \"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.\"
    Albert Einstein

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •