> Given the rather modest hardware requirements of MATE, I do not see much > point in Trisquel Mini anymore. But maybe I am wrong: are there many > current users of Trisquel Mini who have 1 GB (or less) of RAM?
I have a few machines (not my primary one) with 1GB of RAM, and there is a noticeable difference between Trisquel and Trisquel Mini, not so much in RAM usage but in the time it takes to start a session (MATE slowly adds in panels/applets/etc one by one until the session is usable) and responsiveness of desktop components like menus and the file manager. However, the biggest responsiveness issues I run into on these low-resource computers are with individual applications, which I don't think is an issue of the desktop environment. Abrowser takes about 40 seconds to load whether it's in Trisquel, Trisquel Mini, or Icewm, so choice of default applications seems like a bigger issue than choice of desktop environment, at least for 1GB of RAM. With even less RAM, the difference in RAM usage between Trisquel, Trisquel Mini, and something like Icewm might be more important.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
