Thanks! Olaf
At 21.50 28/08/2002, you wrote: >On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:39, Olaf Marzocchi wrote: > > > Maybe you missed this message, so I post it again. > > My question was: gnome 2 and kde 3 are slower than their predecessor? > > (gnome 1.4 and kde 2.2.2). > > If yes, how much? has anyone used them on a 350-400 mhz machine? are them > > suitable for such configuration? > > From my experiences with a 500MHz PIII, a 1GHz PIII and an Athlon XP >2000+ system; > >- there is little difference between KDE 2.2.2 and 3.0.x, but Gnome >2.0.1 is significantly faster than Gnome 1.4; > >- the processor speed is largely irrelevant, as both KDE 3.0.x and Gnome >2.0.1 work perfectly well with all of these machines (and I know someone >who uses both with a 233MHz Pentium MMX laptop); > >- memory matters and is much more important than processor speed; I've >found 128MB a little slow occasionally, particularly when using Mozilla >and/or OpenOffice.org both of which are huge, but have no problems with >256MB; > >- the graphics card matters as, if you have a weak card, you may see >screen artifacts (black bars and other strange effects) with KDE 3.0.x. >I've not seen these with either version of Gnome or KDE 2.2.2. > >In any case, memory is so absurdly cheap all three machines have at >least 512MB. > >Alastair > > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com <olaf@ kjws.com> for every kind of mail, except spam! :-)
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
