LMDE v. XFCE notes

[malligt]

I've installed the debian xfce 32bit with the standard kernel, but I cannot come close to attaining Clem's low RAM memory usage claims.

I don't understand why the 2 Mint debian distros (LMDE and XFCE) are so very very close to being identical RAM-wise. I've checked MD5 sums, and they are correct, and I've tried live-usb installation, and live-dvd installation, with no differences.

Hardware is a DELL Inspiron Laptop with 1GB RAM, 120 GB hdd....

So, for now, I've un-installed the XFCE, and returned to the LMDE.

Additionally, I had previously posted an install of Crunchbang Statler on a <1999> DELL 4100 Dimension Desktop....P3 866mhz 512 RAM 80GB hdd.

I wiped the drive, and then attempted to install the new release of Mint debian XFCE. The MINT installer hung every time.....always at the libre office portion of the installation. I've tried this 4x to no avail.

So, I've gone back to Crunchbang Statler. It re-installed after all my Mint XFCE attempts (again) perfectly.

Ideas? Thoughts?

[nunol]

How are you measuring RAM usage? Do you use top, free? Do you take in to acount RAM from cache and buffers?

[lmintnewb]

Just a newb opinion ( so people might wanna skip this post, lol.)

Does sound strange ... but thought xfce +debian edition is fairly new. Have no idea why RAM with gnome and using xfce would be about the same. For that matter this whole edition of software. Some people in the forums are saying it's fantastic.

Other's for whatever reasons, that they couldn't even get it to install. Maybe ye have displeased the mystical linux gods !!! Have ye prayed to them or offered a donation lately ?!?! If not, REPENT ... lest the linux gods should smite thee !!!

Just being silly on that last part ... couldn't resist. I have to get back to work.

[nunol]

If you measure RAM usage with buffers and cache both XFCE and GNOME use about the same RAM because you are using a lot of RAM for cache and the difference between GNOME and XFCE gets diluted.