GTK+ 3

[dE .]

On 10/17/11 14:19, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
> * dE .<de.techno at gmail.com>  [2011-10-17 07:28]:
>> On 10/16/11 17:34, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
>>> * dE .<de.techno at gmail.com>   [2011-10-15 03:12]:
>>>>> It's been a _long_ time since I was involved in the XFCE project,
>>>>> so far be it for me to speak for the masses.  That said, my own
>>>>> personal opinion is that it's very easy to fall into the
>>>>> large-and-slow trap that GNOME has been slipping toward over the
>>>>> past decade.  I am happy that XFCE continues to work well for me,
>>>>> even without GPU acceleration and with 5-year-old hardware.
>>>> The reason why all DEs are becoming heavy cause more powerful
>>>> hardware is available. By low powered hardware I mean Pentium 3 or
>>>> lower with less than 256 MB ram. The minimum of xfce is 192+, a
>>>> hardware on which LXDE works fast but it's too simple -- it's
>>>> missing very basic features and feels very old.
>>> This kind of lightweight in terms of memory usage argument quickly
>>> falls apart as soon as you try to do anything useful with such
>>> obsolete hardware, ie. open any modern webbrowser, pdf reader or
>>> office suite.
>> So what do you suggest?
> I suggest focusing the marketing of Xfce on its other strengths,
> while in theory Xfce might be able to run with 192 MB RAM on an
> 8-11 year old system, applications, underlying infrastructure and
> the OS itself will be the limiting factor on any modern
> mainstream general-purpose OS.
> Now, embedded platforms are a different matter, there are usually
> specialized OS with specialized DEs and applications which take
> their specific constraints into account.
No, there're a lot of OSs which take less than 64 MB ram at core install 
-- we may exclude Gentoo (just for the installation), OpenSuse, Ubuntu 
but there're plenty more like Arch, Debian, CentOS etc... On 128 MB ram, 
I've got evidence of Chromium working with LXDE if not FF, cause LXDE 
takes 30 - 40 MB on startup.