KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

DeeCodeUh · 2008-04-25 18:30:51

I run the command:

coda ~ $  free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2010       1341        669          0         78        890
-/+ buffers/cache:        373       1637
Swap:         1474          0       1474

So I'm using a total of 373 megs of ram on KDE.
I have an old laptop, and I want to know if I have enough ram to run gnome without excessively using swap.
And if not, I'll just use XFCE.
How much RAM (on average) does Gnome and XFCE use?

Jack B · 2008-04-25 18:58:10

Gnome with metacity, pretty much "out of the box", and with ff3 running

[19:49:59 jack ~]$free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           882        372        509          0         13        163
-/+ buffers/cache:        196        685
Swap:         1200          0       1200

So not very heavy at all. I used to run arch on an IBM TP600e with 128Mb, and it couldn't really manage gnome, XFCE ran great though.

DeeCodeUh · 2008-04-25 19:50:06

That's how much ram I have on my old laptop. Thanks for posting that. I'm going to go with xfce.

kumico · 2008-04-25 20:11:47

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1899       1467        432          0        296        849
-/+ buffers/cache:        320       1578
Swap:            0          0          0

running exaile(30), firefox for about 4 days(approx 58mb), checkgmail(18); a few other apps, all under 10mb
and it averages 250-350 for me.
typically have firefox open for days as well as geany and checkgmail

daf666 · 2008-04-25 21:29:52

daf666@pazuzu ~ $ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 502 419 82 0 0 172
-/+ buffers/cache: 247 255
Swap: 1906 0 1906

KDE 3.5.9 with Firefox2+kmess running

ozar · 2008-04-25 21:58:53

KDE running Firefox 3 and of course Konsole for getting these specs:

$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1010        321        688          0          9        163
-/+ buffers/cache:        147        862
Swap:          517          0        517

B-Con · 2008-04-26 06:31:05

Gnome running Openbox, Deluge, Skype, CheckGMail, TrueCrypt, Firefox2, and Gnome Terminal:

$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2026       1971         54          0         28       1658
-/+ buffers/cache:        285       1741
Swap:         4133          0       4133

Last edited by B-Con (2008-04-26 06:31:38)

robertp · 2008-04-26 07:24:12

Gnome with gnome-terminal:

%free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           496        347        148          0         12        201
-/+ buffers/cache:        133        362
Swap:         1023          0       1023

Kane · 2008-04-26 07:24:51

$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           502        354        148          0          9        158
-/+ buffers/cache:        185        317
Swap:          486          0        486

Xfce
Running: sonata, conky, emesene, cairo-clock, gdesklets, firefox3, Terminal

Last edited by Kane (2008-04-26 07:25:58)

Misbah · 2008-04-26 07:44:52

deleted

Last edited by Misbah (2012-02-14 05:06:27)

kendosperling · 2008-04-26 08:51:55

To save ram dissable composite, AIGLX and reduce the colordepth in xorg.conf.
I was able to achiev 28 mb on xmonad and 70 mb on xfce (only one Terminal open)

Condex · 2008-04-26 14:04:42

condexarch ~ # free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2025        783       1241          0         74        376
-/+ buffers/cache:        332       1692
Swap:          494          0        494

KDEMod running here, Firefox 2 with 3 tabs open and a bunch programs more: Konversation, amaroK, aMSN+two tabs, kmix, yakuake, katapult, klipper, knotes, bluetooth tray icon, knemo...

Not bad after all... :D:D

'Course, those fluxbox stats look better

Cheers!
Condex-

biloky · 2008-04-26 14:09:57

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           153        147          6          0         10         74
-/+ buffers/cache:         62         90
Swap:          256          0        256

LXDE+Openbox with Sakura and Firefox3b5 running

Mikko777 · 2008-04-26 16:21:23

[~]: free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1010        995         14          0         56        580
-/+ buffers/cache:        359        651
Swap:          956          0        956

19:16:59 up 46 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.22, 0.46, 0.61

Pretty Good Memory usage

Kde4, mocp, firefox3b5 with 20+ tabs, deluge 3 downloads, pacman, tupac, yaourt with 3 build packages. Good caching and everything fast as ...

And yes ram is meant to be used

Last edited by Mikko777 (2008-04-26 16:23:18)

alkali1471 · 2008-04-26 19:39:22

             total       used        free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:               217        206          10              0           12          104
-/+ buffers/cache:           90        126
Swap:               486            2        483

fluxbox, firefox2, mpd ncmpc lastfmsubmitd :B

Last edited by alkali1471 (2008-04-26 19:40:42)

raul_nds · 2008-04-26 21:47:15

[raul@horus ~]$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2018        602       1416          0         62        281
-/+ buffers/cache:        259       1759
Swap:         2047          0       2047
[raul@horus ~]$

kdemod with firefox + amarok + kopete + superkaramba + a lot of other things actually. 259 MB. Not bad

lucke · 2008-04-27 02:17:32

Does anyone perhaps have any meaningful and comparable figures for XP/Vista, running basic desktop apps?

Dirhael · 2008-04-27 03:22:57

lucke wrote:

Does anyone perhaps have any meaningful and comparable figures for XP/Vista, running basic desktop apps?

I don't think you'll find any with meaningful figures, and the figures here aren't all that useful either. I mean, even comparing memory usage between two different users with the exact same programs running and the very same hardware will give you very different results unless it's measured directly after a cold boot (and the numbers you'll get then is meaningless anyway), seeing as usage patterns will have a major effect on how much memory any application will use.

Last edited by Dirhael (2008-04-27 03:24:14)

RR_Fang · 2008-04-27 11:46:19

fang ~ $  free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           434        424         10          0          0        116
-/+ buffers/cache:        307        126
Swap:          972          0        972

Arch64 running XFCE, Firefox (7-10 tabs) and Mousepad. Composite is on, but I think it could be disabled. Lighttpd + PHP FastCGI + MySQL are running and wasting about 15% memory... So: a) This high memory usage is explainable; b) I should stop messing with PHP

Last edited by RR_Fang (2008-04-27 11:48:44)

praka123 · 2008-04-27 14:29:32

root ~ #  free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           375        359         16          0         17        166
-/+ buffers/cache:        175        200
Swap:          964          0        964

Gnome-2.22 +firefox3+gnome-terminal
Is this high?

keratos · 2008-04-28 19:15:09

Dirhael wrote:

lucke wrote:
Does anyone perhaps have any meaningful and comparable figures for XP/Vista, running basic desktop apps?
I don't think you'll find any with meaningful figures, and the figures here aren't all that useful either. I mean, even comparing memory usage between two different users with the exact same programs running and the very same hardware will give you very different results unless it's measured directly after a cold boot (and the numbers you'll get then is meaningless anyway), seeing as usage patterns will have a major effect on how much memory any application will use.

Agreed.

What is also not being taken into account here is kernel modules loaded.

Unloading unused modules may reduce significantly, the amount of used memory (i.e. free up memory)

Note the +/-buffers line presents the (used and) free mem available to applications.

Last edited by keratos (2008-04-29 12:01:48)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-25 18:30:51

KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#2 2008-04-25 18:58:10

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#3 2008-04-25 19:50:06

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#4 2008-04-25 20:11:47

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#5 2008-04-25 21:29:52

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#6 2008-04-25 21:58:53

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#7 2008-04-26 06:31:05

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#8 2008-04-26 07:24:12

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#9 2008-04-26 07:24:51

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#10 2008-04-26 07:44:52

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#11 2008-04-26 08:51:55

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#12 2008-04-26 14:04:42

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#13 2008-04-26 14:09:57

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#14 2008-04-26 16:21:23

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#15 2008-04-26 19:39:22

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#16 2008-04-26 21:47:15

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#17 2008-04-27 02:17:32

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#18 2008-04-27 03:22:57

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#19 2008-04-27 11:46:19

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#20 2008-04-27 14:29:32

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

#21 2008-04-28 19:15:09

Re: KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE (amount of ram used.)

Board footer