On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:43 -0500 Sean Middleditch <elanthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 09:15, Chris Rouch wrote: > > > I think, unfortunately, that's just the way it is. gnome 2.4 seems > > to be designed to look pretty rather than be fast. I'm hoping this > > will be addressed in 2.6. While the performance is good on my > > desktop (AMD 2800+, 1Gb ram, so it should be!), it was unacceptable > > on my laptop(750MHz pentium II, 256Mb ram), so I ended up switching > > back to fvwm for my desktop and just using the gnome clients. > > Given that I ran 2.0 on a machine worse off than that (same RAM, > 400mhz CPU, NFS homedir) and it was as snappy as could be, I would > wager your problem wasn't GNOME itself. No it was the whole installation. redhat 7.2/gnome 1.4 was fast. redhat 8/gnome 2.0 (I think) was acceptable, redhat 9 / gnome 2.2. was too slow. Using fvwm instead of gnome panel+sawfish made the system useable. Possibly running redhat 7.2 with gnome 2.4 would be blindingly fast, but I have my doubts. In any case it's not really an option. It seems to be the nature of big s/w that the more mature it gets the bigger and slower it gets. Generally it doesn't matter because the h/w has got even faster in the same time. It's when the h/w stands still that you notice it. I still have an old 450MHz box I can put Fedora and gnome 2.4 on. If gnome is useable on there maybe I'll have another look at using it on the laptop again. Regards, Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Rouch crouch@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
