Where are the goals of XFCE.
mmassonnet at gmail.com
Mon Jul 14 19:22:39 CEST 2008
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:31:53PM -0400, Richard Querin 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.
Xfce makes and made really good choice on low ressource machines while
providing the several components with modularity. But you always have
the choice to go even lower, like openbox ;-)
I know a small local that is equiped with low ressource machines and
running Xfce 4.0 (with a great configuration) back from 2005~, and it
Just to conclude that, being on bleeding-edge (fuzzy word) is not the
way to go for "old/low-ressource-machines". Nowaways you mostly get
"low-cost-machines" where Xfce runs without problem, with composite
extension, and with with with.
mmassonnet at xfce.org
More information about the Xfce