On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:58:54 -0400 Stephen Allen <marathon.duran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:55:13AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:33:04AM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > > > GNOME 3 is quite different from the GNOME 2 series, and has made > > some people correspondingly upset. XFCE is fairly similar to > > GNOME 2, and may suit those people better. In particular, GNOME > > 3 really wants 3D accelerated video. XFCE doesn't care much > > about that. > > > > I've heard this said by other prior too. It doesn't 'really want' hardware acceleration, it *requires* it. I said it because that's what the error message, as explained by the Gnome website, said. The Gnome developers said they no longer felt the need to support 'legacy' hardware, which is of course their absolute right. > Gnome-Shell works fine on an > older circa 2005 IBM X41 laptop. I've been running it since it came to > SID. The main criteria in my experience is having enough RAM. I have > 1.5 Gb and Gnome-Shell runs in about a 300 Mb of ram, and that's with > a handful of Gnome-Shell-Extensions to boot. It runs faster and much > smoother than Gnome 2 ever did on this laptop! When Gnome 3 was introduced to sid on my 2GB workstation, it did not work, and 'upgraded' me to the fallback which contained almost none of my previous environment. As I posted at the time, it was as if an update to Windows 7 told me my machine was now inadequate and gave me Windows 98 instead. I eventually worked out that my on-board graphics system should have at least a rudimentary form of hardware acceleration, and found out how to enable it in my driver, where it had been disabled by default. Gnome 3 would then run. > > So please lets stop the misinformation. Indeed. Let's hear about peoples' actual experiences. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120812093757.0af69...@jretrading.com
