On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500
> and less) machines.
>
> cheers,
>
> Niki

Use e-0.16.8 from cvs. e17 us very changeable and slow IMO. Between
compiles, you may find your settings completely wiped out. 16.8 is
terrific, lightweight, and you can run ROX as a desktop and panel.



--
Peter

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.

I find KDE perfectly usable on a PIII 600 with Slack12, so almost any
desktop should be OK.

That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on how
much of the effects suite is enabled.

Also consider Windowmaker (a bit lighter still) or fvwm-crystal
(light, good-looking, and simple to use).

Mark
--
Signature visual effects not available: check your configuration

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:00:46 +0100, Mark South a écritÂ*:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:
>
>> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
>> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
>> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500
>> and less) machines.
>
> I find KDE perfectly usable on a PIII 600 with Slack12, so almost any
> desktop should be OK.

Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki you
know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.

>
> That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on
> how much of the effects suite is enabled.
lol
if you disable all effect of course it's lighter, but this is not the
goal. E (for Enlightenment) is a jacky WM, so if you it without effect,
it's like use windows Vista disabling all feature : you run a win XP; so
E without effect, is just another WM. sad imho.

--
aster

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écritÂ*:

>
> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.

Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci Jérôme!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
give Fluxbox a try D

Niki

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior wrote:

>> That said, Enlightenment can be a bit lighter than Xfce, depending on
>> how much of the effects suite is enabled.
> lol
> if you disable all effect of course it's lighter, but this is not the
> goal.

I'm sorry, but you're dissing something I didn't say while ignoring what I
did say. Read it again.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 +0000, Niki Kovacs wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.
>
> cheers,
>
> Niki

I've run enlightenment in the form of Elive. I've also tried it and xfce
on several other computers. I believe enlightenment is the 'lighter' of
the two. E17 is still under development - e16 seems quite solid. On a
P3-500, I'd probably look to running Gnome, myself. We have four old
Compaqs at the local library running Ubuntu (I think they may be about
750mhz) and they cope quite well.

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs did catÂ*:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écritÂ*:
>
>
>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>
> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci Jérôme!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
> give Fluxbox a try D

That's my personal choice too, as you seem ready to do some chores
that's a perfect choice, most of the Enlightenment taste, more than it
a bit less hard to install and set up and, unlike E[0-9]+, you won't
have to do it all again while rebuilding half your libs each time
someone adds up a new fancy trendy FX ;-)

Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs a écritÂ*:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écritÂ*:
>
>
>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>
> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci Jérôme!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
> give Fluxbox a try D
>
> Niki

if you have time -a lot of time- you can do what you want with fvwm. This
is the most configurable Windows Manager, but very long to configure.
Browse screenshots of fvwm on deviantart or other.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:03:00 +0100, Jérôme Prior wrote:

> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs a écritÂ*:
>
>> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écritÂ*:
>>
>>
>>> Not sure. I use E16 for a time, and kde 3.4 was more "reactif" than E.
>>> Now kde 3.5 is very usable, I don't know about E17, but I think E with
>>> full featuring is more resource-hungry than kde full featuring. Nikki
>>> you know kde, and you know what it is related to xfce.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice, folks! (Merci Jérôme!) Well, looks like I'm gonna
>> give Fluxbox a try D
>>
> if you have time -a lot of time- you can do what you want with fvwm. This
> is the most configurable Windows Manager, but very long to configure.
> Browse screenshots of fvwm on deviantart or other.

Interesting suggestion, given that you completely dissed my first post in
this thread, where I suggested fvwm-crystal, which is exactly fvwm with a
lot of preconfiguration and integration already done for one.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11 Dec 2007 08:06:01 GMT, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.
>

Enlightenment v17 might be a chore to install, but e16 is a breeze.
Imlib2 might be the only dependency not in Slackware already.

I haven't used XFCE, but e16 seems very light to me. I have used it
for years on my PIII-800.

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2

The fnlib on that page is only if you are building against imlib1
(for an old release like 0.16.5). For a recent release like
e16-0.16.8, all that is needed is imlib2.

Brad


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHYbPLkDp4KjYna1ARAt7pAKC4nksRwmzxPkWDeR8Dfx xOsj/+DACeI2DL
IpfYE9osyd4UaSSjxJWiFC0=
=g11m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2007-12-11, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never tried out Enlightenment. Since it's a bit of a chore to install
> it, I'd rather ask first: is it more or less resource-hungry than XFCE?
> I'm looking for something that could do well on some legacy (PIII-500 and
> less) machines.
>

I'm using ratpoison and am amazed at what you can do with it.
It's all keyboard driven. It uses an escape key to keep it from conflicting
with keybindings on other apps.

It's the X version of gnu screen, I am told, though I don't know that app.

A typial screen has an app like firefox, or an xterm, and nothing else. No
clutter on the screen at all.

You can take any screen and divide it into any number of squares and rectangles
(called 'frames') with whatever you want running in them.

You can set up workspaces, which are groups of windows-frames that are kept completely
seperate.

There are a couple of bash scripts that come with RP that set up workspaces and divide
them into frames (they are examples that can be easily modified). The docs come in info
and html and are very clear.

(One of the scripts, rpws, is a perl script with the newer versions, but the bash version
is in the archives and I'll send it to you if you are interested.)

There are a lot of scripts and X-utilities written for it that can be just installed and used.
There's even one that allows you to manipulate the mouse pointer with the keyboard.

http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/

It takes a few hours of experimentation and reading the docs to get a handle on it, but the sky's the limit
and it uses very little in the way of resources. Nothing compared to KDE. My memory footprint right
now, with three workspaces and 13 windows is 41MB.

Tom

--
simpleman.s43
That would be at gee male

On 2007-12-14, Tom N wrote:

> It's the X version of gnu screen, I am told, though I don't know that app.

Of course you do, Alan Connor. "screen" is your favorite app.

> Tom

Tom, your name is "Alan Connor". Try to remember that.

Bugger off.


--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On 2007-12-14, Dan C wrote:
> On 2007-12-14, Tom N wrote:
>
>> It's the X version of gnu screen, I am told, though I don't know that app.
>
> Of course you do, Alan Connor. "screen" is your favorite app.
>
>> Tom
>
> Tom, your name is "Alan Connor". Try to remember that.
>
> Bugger off.

You don't need to talk to me. You need to talk to a qualified
psychotherapist.

As for "buggering off", why don't you make me?

But keep this in mind: No mentally incompetent person calling me names
has ever been able to force me to do anything.

Which is something I share in common with most of the human race.

Have a day. And do be careful. Alan Connor may be lurking in your
closet waiting to pounce.

Tom

--
simpleman.s43
That would be at gee male

On 2007-12-14, Tom N wrote:
>> Tom, your name is "Alan Connor". Try to remember that.
>>
>> Bugger off.

> You don't need to talk to me. You need to talk to a qualified
> psychotherapist.
>
> As for "buggering off", why don't you make me?
>
> But keep this in mind: No mentally incompetent person calling me names
> has ever been able to force me to do anything.

More proof that you are indeed Alan Connor.

All of your statements above are *exactly* what he was always fond of
saying, before he (you) went undercover.

You're outed, Alan.

Give it up and go bother some other newsgroup. You're a known troll and
a certified net kook. Does "Sam" know you frequent this NG now? LOL

Like I said, bugger off, whacko. You're boring.



--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".