- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu Tablet OS Hardware Requirements Revealed
Called “Ubuntu on tablets,” the yet to be released operating system will give users a modern and polished, yet classy tablet experience. |
|
|
Comments (52)
32 earlier comments in the full thread.
I've used and bench marked KDE, Unity, and E17 and a number of other desktops. How is that NOT first hand experience? I get that you are trying to be clever and say the same thing I already did - but you are the one being ignorant trying nothing but KDE and still commenting on the state of other things you haven't used.
I love a good debate, but they generally include facts. At this point I feel like I am just feeding a troll "It is better because I said so!". Not "It is better because I've tried all the alternatives and this really surpasses them all."
~Jeff
I love a good debate, but they generally include facts. At this point I feel like I am just feeding a troll "It is better because I said so!". Not "It is better because I've tried all the alternatives and this really surpasses them all."
~Jeff
Quoting:KDE is a also a hog resource wise.
Quoting:there is enough miss-information on the internet.
Indeed!
;)
@Slacker_Mike pull up KDE on a 1ghz chip with sub 1gig of RAM. You will see what I mean.
~Jeff
~Jeff
Seriously that is the criteria to determine if a desktop environment is a "resource hog" or not?
@Slacker_Mike There are piles of these PCs still alive from decades past. Beyond that there are piles of ARM devices created every day with specs in this range (A10, RPI and others). They are just the easiest to see the speed difference on - but there is a performance difference in how quick the desktop responds with KDE vs LXDE/E17 on powerful hardware even.
~Jeff
~Jeff
You can claim all you want, but the fact is, on my machine that has Atom 330 with 1.6GHz and 2GB, KDE 4.10 runs really really well. In today's standards, it is considered a medium level resource computer. What you don't seem to understand is that, what is bloat to you, which you seem to be obsessed with, might be perfectly OK with someone else. You need to realize that, resources on today's computers are way more than sufficient and mostly not utilized when running KDE multiple times over [virtualization, -:)]. So what is to complain about?
Since I see KDE to be the best desktop that fulfills my requirements and preferences, why on earth do I want to worry about how it performs on 1GHz machine? It is irrelevant to anyone who likes and uses KDE and there are many of them.
Besides, on many occasions, I do mention that KDE is a heavier DE and it is not for slow older computers, but your bloat claims are way too excessive.
On tablets with 1.GHz ARM, the demos I linked to show that they can even handle full fledged KDE decently. But that is not the intention and KDE is being optimized to run better. Vivaldi is for tablet devices since not all features are needed or required.
What difference does it make if one desktop is nanosecond faster than another when it takes a human a few seconds to reach and move a mouse from one side to another? It really is silly to argue about the small difference.
People spend a lot of time at a computer doing their thing, they might as well use what they like and prefer and not get bothered by something they don't enjoy. This is something you don't seem to understand or appreciate. May be it is time to grow your understanding to peoples preference and choice.
Since I see KDE to be the best desktop that fulfills my requirements and preferences, why on earth do I want to worry about how it performs on 1GHz machine? It is irrelevant to anyone who likes and uses KDE and there are many of them.
Besides, on many occasions, I do mention that KDE is a heavier DE and it is not for slow older computers, but your bloat claims are way too excessive.
On tablets with 1.GHz ARM, the demos I linked to show that they can even handle full fledged KDE decently. But that is not the intention and KDE is being optimized to run better. Vivaldi is for tablet devices since not all features are needed or required.
What difference does it make if one desktop is nanosecond faster than another when it takes a human a few seconds to reach and move a mouse from one side to another? It really is silly to argue about the small difference.
People spend a lot of time at a computer doing their thing, they might as well use what they like and prefer and not get bothered by something they don't enjoy. This is something you don't seem to understand or appreciate. May be it is time to grow your understanding to peoples preference and choice.
I've never once attacked people's choices or their right to choose different things. Choice is one of the best things about FOSS software.
It is just every time I hear people defend Unity or KDE with "modern computers have enough resources that the desktop can use a bunch of them" I recall that when I present Linux as light and fast to Windows advocates I get the same response from them.
Maybe wanting my operating system to boot to sub 128MB of RAM puts me into a minority group - then so be it. But I know there are plenty others out there like me, it is why the projects like E17 and LXDE exist.
Just because my system has a lot of horse power doesn't mean I want that horse power going towards powering the operating system - I want those resource open to be allocated to the applications I use every day.
~Jeff Hoogland
It is just every time I hear people defend Unity or KDE with "modern computers have enough resources that the desktop can use a bunch of them" I recall that when I present Linux as light and fast to Windows advocates I get the same response from them.
Maybe wanting my operating system to boot to sub 128MB of RAM puts me into a minority group - then so be it. But I know there are plenty others out there like me, it is why the projects like E17 and LXDE exist.
Just because my system has a lot of horse power doesn't mean I want that horse power going towards powering the operating system - I want those resource open to be allocated to the applications I use every day.
~Jeff Hoogland
> ...why on earth do I want to worry about how it performs on 1GHz machine?
Do you want those people to use it? If not, then no reason.
> It is irrelevant to anyone who likes and uses KDE and there are many of them.
Just not people with 1GB of memory or 1 GHz processors. But if that's your choice...
Do you want those people to use it? If not, then no reason.
> It is irrelevant to anyone who likes and uses KDE and there are many of them.
Just not people with 1GB of memory or 1 GHz processors. But if that's your choice...
+2 to Jeff91 and jdixon on calling out fattoosh on the baboontoonity tablet's near-vaporware!
2c
2c
So, a question for all you hardware freaks arguing about resource requirements:
Which is going to be the harsher constraint to running KDE well :
* only one GHZ for the CPU (acknowledging the difficulty of measuring processor performance by GHz), or
* only one GB of RAM?
Feel free to expand the consideration to "lighter" versions of Linux as well. :-)
Which is going to be the harsher constraint to running KDE well :
* only one GHZ for the CPU (acknowledging the difficulty of measuring processor performance by GHz), or
* only one GB of RAM?
Feel free to expand the consideration to "lighter" versions of Linux as well. :-)
@Jeff91
Just because there are piles of old machines does not automatically equate to KDE being a resource hog. Now if KDE advertised itself as the lightweight desktop that will bring life to machines that were new when Windows ME shipped, then sure they could be accused of being a resource hog, but to my knowledge KDE makes no such claims. KDE appears to be targeting the mainstream desktop users of Windows and OS X.
On my laptop, a 64bit install, KDE 4.84 idles around 400mb of ram which seems to me a very fair trade-off between functionality and performance. Compare that to Windows 7 a desktop that KDE aims to compete with and I find KDE to use less resources, so more bang for the buck.
Just because KDE doesn't idle at 130mb of ram doesn't mean it is bloated or a resource hog. It could mean that E17 and KDE have different goals and objectives.
Just because there are piles of old machines does not automatically equate to KDE being a resource hog. Now if KDE advertised itself as the lightweight desktop that will bring life to machines that were new when Windows ME shipped, then sure they could be accused of being a resource hog, but to my knowledge KDE makes no such claims. KDE appears to be targeting the mainstream desktop users of Windows and OS X.
On my laptop, a 64bit install, KDE 4.84 idles around 400mb of ram which seems to me a very fair trade-off between functionality and performance. Compare that to Windows 7 a desktop that KDE aims to compete with and I find KDE to use less resources, so more bang for the buck.
Just because KDE doesn't idle at 130mb of ram doesn't mean it is bloated or a resource hog. It could mean that E17 and KDE have different goals and objectives.
-1 for someone using "baboontoonity" in a comment....
2c
2c
Jes gotta be smarter than the tool!!
I run a P4 box w/ .8G RAM. Not exactly smoking hardware. I also use KDE 4. BUT! ....I use fluxbox as my DE and run the KDE 4 apps from FB. Works great. Heck, KDE even runs OK if I disable icantaddy and creepomuk, though not as fast as FB, which doesn't init them at all.
Well, I should say KDE usta work OK. Now, doesn't work at all. Since I rarely ever use the KDE DE, it seems to have rusted shut or something and will no longer boot up. Slack has 6 diff WM/DEs. KDE is the only one that no longer boots. I'd say it still has issues.
I run a P4 box w/ .8G RAM. Not exactly smoking hardware. I also use KDE 4. BUT! ....I use fluxbox as my DE and run the KDE 4 apps from FB. Works great. Heck, KDE even runs OK if I disable icantaddy and creepomuk, though not as fast as FB, which doesn't init them at all.
Well, I should say KDE usta work OK. Now, doesn't work at all. Since I rarely ever use the KDE DE, it seems to have rusted shut or something and will no longer boot up. Slack has 6 diff WM/DEs. KDE is the only one that no longer boots. I'd say it still has issues.
Quoting:It is just every time I hear people defend Unity or KDE with "modern computers have enough resources that the desktop can use a bunch of them" I recall that when I present Linux as light and fast to Windows advocates I get the same response from them....
You are using the wrong approach to advocate for and promote FOSS. Windows and Apple users keep using them because of their many features, capabilities and applications available for them. They aren't going to abandon them for Linux just for being lighter and needs less resources. They will go for Linux if it is is comparable and matches everything, features, capabilities, applications, plus more on both but still keeping pretty good performance. KDE Plasma is doing that and more. Not only on the desktop, but also on Netbooks, tablets, and phones in the future. KDE is simply not just a desktop, but also a suite of applications that work/will work with on all, just like Canonical is doing with Ubuntu.
Quoting:Just because my system has a lot of horse power doesn't mean I want that horse power going towards powering the operating system - I want those resource open to be allocated to the applications I use every day.
When surplus resources are being wasted for not being utilized at all, it might as well be used for whatever else users like to have available in heavier DEs.
There are a lot more KDE users than lighter DE like E17. Look it up on the Internet.
@Fettoosh How on earth do you even know KDE offers more than E17? You've admitted to never having used it!
If you honestly just used the "KDE is more popular, so it must be better" line... At that rate we all better just go use Windows or OSX - they are after all far more popular than Linux as a whole - regardless of desktop.
~Jeff
If you honestly just used the "KDE is more popular, so it must be better" line... At that rate we all better just go use Windows or OSX - they are after all far more popular than Linux as a whole - regardless of desktop.
~Jeff
You are putting words in my mouth, what I said is KDE does more than Apple and Windows, didn't include E17. Besides, I don't have to use a DE to know much about it, All I need to read is its own release feature list.
Does E17 have its own suite of applications? Resounding No.
Does E17 have its own suite of applications? Resounding No.
I'm aware E17 doesn't include it's own full blown application set - never said it did.
It is great that KDE does.
That fact doesn't make KDE and more light weight - which was my only point.
~Jeff
It is great that KDE does.
That fact doesn't make KDE and more light weight - which was my only point.
~Jeff
Quoting:That fact doesn't make KDE and more light weight
No one ever claimed that KDE is light weight either. KDE developers know and well aware of that fact and it is the reason why they have a different interface and compilation for each type of hardware configuration: KDE Plasma Desktops, Netbook Plasma for Netbooks, and Plasma Active for tablets and possibly phones.
Quoting:That fact doesn't make KDE and more light weight - which was my only point.
I think if you would have made that statement rather than KDE is a resource hog I would have less of a problem with it. Resource hog implies that KDE isn't suited to or performing well on the devices it targets, which to me seems untrue. I still maintain that KDE does more for a user with the 400mb of ram it uses than other desktops, therefore it accomplishes the goal rather nicely. None of this means it is lightweight or going to boot to 128mb ram at idle, again not it's goal.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Technical feasibility. That has little to do with bringing something to market. Right now, it's every bit as much vaporware as the Samsung device, perhaps more given the track records involved.