Where are the goals of XFCE.
grantmasterflash at gmail.com
Mon Jul 14 18:54:42 CEST 2008
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Richard Querin <rfquerin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Grant Edwards <grante at visi.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-14, Vincent <mailinglists at vinnl.nl> wrote:
>> > Of course talking light-weightness is not stupid. However, it
>> > is madness to assume that, because Xfce ran on old computers
>> > five years ago, Xfce should still run on those same computers
>> > today even though they've become five years older. "Old
>> > computers" of today can handle more than "old computers" of
>> > yesterday.
>> Cool. Where do you get one of those computers who's capacity
>> increases with time? My "old computers" of a few years ago are
>> the same machines as my "old computers" of today. :)
> I think something like a 5 year old or 8 year old moving window is
> completely reasonable. Xfce works great with my P4-3Ghz which is now
> probably 5 years old. Gnome works, but not nearly as well. But I don't
> expect XFCE to work well with my Pentium75 from years gone by. Things have
> to change. But you can still make sure you cater to old machines and define
> what that means based on the current state of the art.
> If we went back 8 years we'd be sitting at the original P4/Athlon XP
> timeframe so I think that's probably good. Also let's not forget mobile
> CPUs. I run XFCE on my 1ghz Effecion because Gnome and KDE are too big. Just
> because something is new doesn't make it powerful. They've gotten KDE to run
> on the Nokia n800! I think XFCE would have been a better target.
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
I'd say from the machines I've seen around the world a PIII or Athlon is not
a bad target. This doesn't mean it should be able to do compositing and all
that fancy stuff but if it ran on it OK there'd be a lot of happy people.
And currently XFCE does run on those machines.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xfce