I have a general question for people...

Most people say Enlightenment is eye candy and resource intensive. Yet KDE takes longer to load up and is slower.

Does anyone have a take on this, or can relate?

Okay, I tend to use Enlightenment the most so I timed my little 400mhz machine with only 128 megs of RAM and tested the difference on my machine.

Loading times on my machine....

Enlightenment = roughly less than 3 seconds to load after startx

KDE = roughly around 12 seconds to load after startx

Most of the time, it seems that Enlightenment runs faster in most cases on other various other programs, opening, and other tasks that I do depending on the program.

So I am not the only one. Doesnt that seem kinda strange to anyone? maybe there are services that KDE starts that jsut take up space.

Ok, I took some screenshots of my processes running both E and KDE.. basically running the same services along with whatever is needed by each..

Enlightenment: http://www.jabentley.com/images/E.png

KDE: http://www.jabentley.com/images/kde.png

It clearly shows to me that KDE is a much bigger resource hog.

well, BOTH eyecandy, and BOTH resource intensive. people think they need all ths jumped up rubbish.. i guess it saves them them 5 minutes it'd take to learn stuff properly. that doesn of course lead to a much greater delay from navigating gui's and waiting for the crippled machine to do it's thang... but hey who counting!

blackbox rules.

I just did a quick scan so i am assuming the only difference is Desktop environements when i write this, but here the stats:

KDE stats: 50 processes active / 124 MB mem used

E stats: 34 processes active / 111 MB mem used

Thanks Tricky... I did not even think about doing a check like that. But this was very Enlightening. Hehehe

hey, I like blackbox too.

and I don't really see KDE as eyecandy though. it just seems too cluttered even after I've fully customized it once before and it just doesn't appeal to me when i'm in X. oh well..

enlightenment rules too..

No problem, after you brought it up, I was curious myself.

<begin random rant>
Slightly off topic, but only slightly. I think that it's a shame that most desktop oriented distros choose to use either KDE or Gnome simply because it's the closest to Windows that you can get... they're such hogs that it gives people the wrong first impression. If they offered something like IceWM as the default WM, then people would go (as their first impression) 'Cripes! This looks a bit like W95 and runs like lightning!' instead of 'Cripes! This looks like WXP and runs like a slug!'.

Oh, and SawFish rules!
</end random rant>

yeah, not sure if they still do but i remember when i started out with turbolinux, they used windowmaker by default. well at least that was the default that came up first.

but you do have to remember that most distro's come with many to choose from and give you the choice on which one you want to use during the install. i just think since kde and gnome are so popular that not many know or are familiar with any others out there.

I Think the "enlightenment being a pig" thing started long enough ago when enlightenment, which hasn't changed much over the past few years, really was a bigger pig than the pre-V2 Kde.

Being a big user of KDE, I really don't notice the speed hit, either on the Athy 1.2 768Mb RAM or the P3 500 128Mb Laptop... well okay the laptop running KDE 3 takes a little while to get running, but the Athy just blinks all 20+ windows back into existence, and this is just a basic slack install with a little xinerama tweaking.

Ah what junk am I talking, I just leave everything on all the time anyway...

Cheers,

Finegan