0
I've just started looking at KDE and it's obviously a much slicker interface to Ubuntu than Gnome.
Any information available on how much additional hardware resources it takes to generate all that visual slickness?
I'm running Ubuntu on a 4 year old laptop with no dedicated graphics card (just the Intel Core Duo single-core graphics chip - whatever that's called). I'm concerned it might not be up to the task.
lipton
Posted 2009-09-18T19:52:34.903
Reputation: 789
1
Around 2 years old, but some very useful information here: Desktop Memory Usage. I found this page when comparing XFCE and GNOME a long time ago, lots of useful information.
John T
Posted 2009-09-18T19:52:34.903
Reputation: 149 037
Whoa. That's surprising. The results go completely against my intuition that KDE would be more resource-intensive than Gnome because it seems more graphics-heavy. It's just one test I guess, but still, quite surprising. Thanks. – lipton – 2009-09-19T03:43:05.497
2
What is described there is a previous version of KDE - the page is about 2 years old, as you noticed. The current KDE is TOTALLY changed with respect to that one and I'm quite certain that those conclusions no longer apply.
What makes you say that KDE is "slicker"? – endolith – 2009-10-13T22:47:40.543