Where are the goals of XFCE.

Diego Jacobi jacobidiego at gmail.com
Mon Jul 14 19:12:04 CEST 2008

> This whole thread is a great example of proud parents having the neighbors
> tell them their kid is ugly!  I don't think the original poster was bitching
> and was taken way to seriously. I also think the core point was legitimate.
> Efficiency is important. We in America (and Europe) assume that the rest of
> the world has what we have but I can tell you that this isn't the case. I
> spend 3 months a year in foreign countries and my daughters 6 year old beige
> box PC is more powerful than just about anything I've come in contact with.
> Efficiency is important in another matter. I consult for one of the largest
> corporations in the world and I chose XFCE 4.2 for all media duplication
> servers and aircraft maintenance boxes. We have over 100 machines in 25
> countries world wide. I chose XFCE because CentOS with XFCE used 64 MB of
> ram. The machines are 3.0 Ghz P4s with 1 GB of ram. They're not 486s
> struggling to open a window. Gnome and KDE used 150 MB more ram leaving our
> application with 150 MB less ram to work with and we need every MB we can
> get.
> When we upgraded all machines to CentOS 5 we upgraded the XFCE to 4.4. We
> welcomed the changes because now we get less flack from the field. With 4.2
> people were trying to get into Gnome because they couldn't deal with not
> having desk icons! Weird I know. Anyway we've lost some of our advantage
> because it seems that 4.4 is more resource heavy but because we have an
> investment in dev time and training we're staying with XFCE for now. I guess
> the moral of the story was we chose XFCE because it gave us the most
> complete desktop with the smallest footprint. I still believe there's a
> market for such a thing.
> I think that the original posters main beef was that there was no page
> telling the philosophy or goals of XFCE. I think in the years I've been
> using XFCE that those goals have changed. When it started out it was
> supposed to be a really lightweight desktop that you would use in low memory
> situations. Now XFCE is posing itself as more of an alternative to the two
> big boys and since 4.4 has come out the percentage of user share has gone
> up. Maybe this will leave a void where XFCE once was and someone else will
> fill it. You have to admit that being able to say you're one of the big
> three desktops is better than saying you develop for the one that people use
> when they can't use the other two. :-)
> As far as the comment about power consumption, my Core2 Duo uses 8x the
> power of a Pentium 75.  I couldn't find specs on the 486. :-) I'm sure
> overall computers are more efficient power wise but CPUs use substantially
> more powere when operating than they used to.
> Grant

You are right on every word you say, or at least thats my opinion too.  :D

Hardware consumption is directly proportional to the number of
transistors (and the miniaturization) and the clock frecuency. Old
hardware at maximum clock speed will take a lot more of power to do
less instructions per second than a very new an expensive hardware
clocked down. A 2 Ghz microprocesor taking as an example W, clocked
down to 600 Mhz will take less than 1 W.
The "public" goals and phiosophy of xfce will allow it to run nicely
on that kind of low-end/energy systems, but as i have read on all
thoose divergent answers, the goals has changed and that is what i was
wanting to confirm in some public webpage.

Sorry for every kind of miss interpretation that i could have generated.

More information about the Xfce mailing list