XFCE vs. Enlightenment - Slackware

This is a discussion on XFCE vs. Enlightenment - Slackware ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

  1. XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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

  2. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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

  3. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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

  4. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

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

    > 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

  5. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

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

    >
    > 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

  6. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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.

  7. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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.


  8. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

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

    > Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écrit*:
    >
    >
    >> 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 ;-)

  9. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

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

    > Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écrit*:
    >
    >
    >> 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.

  10. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

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

    > Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Niki Kovacs a écrit*:
    >
    >> Le Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:22 +0100, Jérôme Prior a écrit*:
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.

  11. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    -----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-----

  12. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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


  13. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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".


  14. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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


  15. Re: XFCE vs. Enlightenment

    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".


+ Reply to Thread