SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

Hi,

I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
less) machines.

cheers,

Niki

#2 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500
> and less) machines.
>
> cheers,
>
> Niki

Use e-0.16.8 from cvs. e17 us very changeable and slow IMO. Between
compiles, you may find your settings completely wiped out. 16.8 is
terrific, lightweight, and you can run ROX as a desktop and panel.

--
Peter

#3 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.

I find KDE perfectly usable on a PIII 600 with Slack12, so almost any
desktop should be OK.

That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on how
much of the effects suite is enabled.

Also consider Windowmaker (a bit lighter still) or fvwm-crystal
(light, good-looking, and simple to use).

Mark
--
Signature visual effects not available: check your configuration

#4 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:00:46 +0100, Mark South a Ã©critÂ*:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:
>
>> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
>> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
>> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500
>> and less) machines.
>
> I find KDE perfectly usable on a PIII 600 with Slack12, so almost any
> desktop should be OK.

Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki you
know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.

>
> That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on
> how much of the effects suite is enabled.
lol
if you disable all effect of course it's lighter, but this is not the
goal. E (for Enlightenment) is a jacky WM, so if you it without effect,
it's like use windows Vista disabling all feature : you run a win XP; so
E without effect, is just another WM. sad imho.

--
aster

#5 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior a Ã©critÂ*:

>
> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.

Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci JÃ©rÃ´me!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
give Fluxbox a try

D

Niki

#6 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior wrote:

>> That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on
>> how much of the effects suite is enabled.
> lol
> if you disable all effect of course it's lighter, but this is not the
> goal.

I'm sorry, but you're dissing something I didn't say while ignoring what I
did say. Read it again.

#7 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.
>
> cheers,
>
> Niki

I've run enlightenment in the form of Elive. I've also tried it and xfce
on several other computers. I believe enlightenment is the 'lighter' of
the two. E17 is still under development - e16 seems quite solid. On a
P3-500, I'd probably look to running Gnome, myself. We have four old
Compaqs at the local library running Ubuntu (I think they may be about
750mhz) and they cope quite well.

#8 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs did catÂ*:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior a Ã©critÂ*:
>
>
>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>
> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci JÃ©rÃ´me!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
> give Fluxbox a try

D

That's my personal choice too, as you seem ready to do some chores
that's a perfect choice, most of the Enlightenment taste, more than it
a bit less hard to install and set up and, unlike E[0-9]+, you won't
have to do it all again while rebuilding half your libs each time
someone adds up a new fancy trendy FX ;-)

#9 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs a Ã©critÂ*:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior a Ã©critÂ*:
>
>
>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>
> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci JÃ©rÃ´me!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
> give Fluxbox a try

D
>
> Niki

if you have time -a lot of time- you can do what you want with fvwm. This
is the most configurable Windows Manager, but very long to configure.
Browse screenshots of fvwm on deviantart or other.

#10 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:42 AM

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:03:00 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior wrote:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs a Ã©critÂ*:
>
>> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, JÃ©rÃ´me Prior a Ã©critÂ*:
>>
>>
>>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci JÃ©rÃ´me!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
>> give Fluxbox a try

D
>>
> if you have time -a lot of time- you can do what you want with fvwm. This
> is the most configurable Windows Manager, but very long to configure.
> Browse screenshots of fvwm on deviantart or other.

Interesting suggestion, given that you completely dissed my first post in
this thread, where I suggested fvwm-crystal, which is exactly fvwm with a
lot of preconfiguration and integration already done for one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

XFCE vs. Enlightenment