[GRLUG] Bodhi Linux

[John-Thomas Richards]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:56:47PM -0400, Bob Kline wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM, John-Thomas Richards <jtr at jrichards.org>wrote:
[snip]
> > > http://enlightenment.org
> >
> > This is from the website:
> >
> > "We have run and tested on x86-32, x86-64, Atom, Power-PC, ARM (ARM9,
> > ARM11, Cortex-A8 and more), MIPS, Sparc, and many other architectures.
> > The suggested minimum RAM required for a full Linux system + EFL
> > application is 16MB, but you may be able to get by on 8MB. For full
> > functionality 64MB or more is suggested. As little as a 200Mhz ARM core
> > will provide sufficient processing power (depending on needs).
> >
> > "Screens from even less than QVGA (320x240 or 240x320) screens all the
> > way up to and beyond full-HD (1920x1080) are covered by EFL. It has the
> > ability to scale user interfaces to almost any sane resolution, as well
> > as adapt to differing input device resolutions, from mouse and stylus to
> > fat fingers. It can draw displays from e-paper through 8-bit paletted
> > displays, 16bit beautifully dithered ones all the way to full 24/32bit
> > OLED beauties."
> >
> > Notice the recommended RAM.  Sixty-four megabytes.  For a full desktop
> > environment.
> >
> 

> I think this group has kicked around the notion of the virtues of
> minimalist systems before.  The fact is that hardware is cheap now,
> including memory.  Software bloat is an issue, but not one to one with
> hardware cost.  e.g., a large software package can have large numbers
> of features no one ever uses.  And the unused features do take up
> memory space.  But does that in any meaningful way slow down the
> portion people use?

I frequently compile LaTeX documents (multiple times a week).  Is it
slow?  Not really.  Takes less than a second.  But if I right-click on
something and the system takes a half-second to pop up a dialog box,
that's really annoying.  I don't want to ever wait for my computer
*interface* to do anything, especially when I'm working.  That's one
reason I use openbox.  It's fast.  By fast I don't mean that sending a
print job to a printer is faster than other window managers.  I mean
that when I use the graphical interface it feels snappy, without a
delay.  This is why a fast GUI is important.  If I'm compiling some
software I expect it to take a while.  When I open an app, I don't
expect a delay (boy do I hate [Open|Libre]Office for this).  When I
shade a window or minimize it, I don't want any lag.

> Somehow, I doubt it. 25 years ago the Russians were very good at
> squeezing every last ounce of performance out of the silly old
> computers they had, but they had to.
> 
> And there's long been some kind of notion of wasted CPU cycles.  But
> you could work for a year getting 50% more performance out of an old
> CPU, and the easy and cost effective answer is simply to buy a
> multi-CPU processor, or one that's 5X as fast as the 10 year old
> clunker you now have.
> 
> I'd say the more important cycles are heartbeats.  How many do you
> want to spend to keep that old stuff afloat?  For some it's a
> challenge, and the software streamlining might mean that even a newer
> processor will produce better performance.  But except for core OS
> software, is it usually worth it?  Unless you have some kind of real
> time need?

Again, the point of a really efficient DE like e17 isn't so one can use
it on really old hardware (though that is a great benefit, particularly
for those who cannot afford the latest).  That e17 *can* run on a
Pentium 200MHz box with 64MB of RAM demonstrates that it will be
snappier than, say, GNOME on a quadcore i7 processor running at 2.2GHz
with 8GB of RAM and 1.5GB of video RAM.
-- 
john-thomas
------
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are
free.
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, novelist and philosopher (1749-1832)

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.