lmintnewb wrote:tried removing it's header/etc in synaptic
One of the most significant improvements is the performance boost given to this edition.
Here are a few figures comparing the memory consumption in the 32-bit live sessions of Linux Mint Xfce and Linux Mint 9 Xfce:
Mint Xfce: 114 MB RAM (Mint 9 Xfce: 153 MB RAM)
Mint Xfce + Writer + Calc + Firefox: 177 MB RAM (Mint 9 Xfce + Writer + Calc + Firefox: 212 MB RAM)
Mint Xfce + Writer + Calc + Firefox + Thunderbird + VLC + Rhythmbox: 220 MB RAM (Mint 9 Xfce + Writer + Calc + Firefox + Thunderbird + Gnome MPlayer + Exaile: 256 MB RAM)
This performance boost allowed us to give Xfce a more mainstream software selection, replacing Exaile with Rhythmox, adding VLC and giving Xfce almost the same software selection as Gnome.
With KDE 4 and Gnome 3 bringing drastic changes to their environments, and with the emergence of Fluxbox and LXDE on the lightweight scene, Xfce represents a nice alternative for PC desktop users who are looking for a light yet full-featured desktop solution. Its relevance is becoming more significant and this is another reason for us to support it in both 32-bit and 64-bit and to give it a mainstream software selection.
We also added mintMenu to this edition as an alternative menu. Be aware that it uses an additional 30MB RAM. You can add it easily by right-clicking on the panel and selecting “Add new Items”->”XfApplet”->”mintMenu”.
If the idea is to turn Xfce into more of a performance desktop,
that makes it all the more unfortunate that a 486 kernel is used by default
zerozero wrote:regarding the kernel question, Brian, it's not a Mint decision, it's Debian's http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/upco ... -i386.html
and i believe that if you install the 686-PAE(+the headers), the 486 gets unistalled (didn't tried myself)
anyway you have an amd64 v.
Brian49 wrote:Chris M - thanks for the advice. Evidently I missed a trick when trying to remove the 486 kernel. Anyway, I'm now trying out the 64-bit version of LMDE Xfce. In general it's going well so far, although there's a whole lot of minor aggravations to be ironed out. It's certainly lighter on system resources than I had feared.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests