Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 02:26:46 -0900 From: Beech Rintoul <beech@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Harry Veltman <veltman@intergate.com>, Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> Subject: Re: Which FreeBSD is best for my PC? Message-ID: <200812010226.46883.beech@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20081201121113.23e67986.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <002701c9538a$10ff0330$005bfb48@harryveltman> <200812011153.12902.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> <20081201121113.23e67986.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 01 December 2008 02:11:13 Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:53:11 +0100, Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> wrote: > > We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a: > > CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU) > > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8 > > Oldie @ 1 GHz? You must be joking. I'd bite my hand off for > such hardware. :-) > > > That's pretty much as low as I'd go for normal desktop usage. > > For KDE? Yes, I do understand that. I would not even think about > trying KDE or Gnome on a 300 MHz box. But desktop usage != KDE. > KDE = preconfigured desktop with many built-in functionalities. > I think Gnome has gotten pretty much the same like KDE in terms > of ressource consumption. (I can't tell for sure, I'm not using > it on a daily basis.) What about XFCE 4? Maybe that would be a > good point to start, unless of couse the toolkit is too heavy... > > > The machine > > you're describing, still makes for a good router or LAN resolver with low > > traffic webserving. > > I have such an "oldie", P2 300 MHz, 256 MB RAM, ATI graphics > (it's a Compaq Deskpro), FreeBSD 5.4, XFCE 3, OpenOffice 1.1.5, > custom kernel, mplayer (compiled), xmms, Opera 7, Sylpheed. > I'm not lying: This machine performs better in some regards > than my 2 GHz P4 with FreeBSD 7! Applications come up faster, > screen output renders faster. And even things that don't work > on my "fast" system (wine, screen resolution in X, duplex > printing) work excellently there. I've got no explaination > for this, but it's true. > > As a server most "oldies" are good if they run well. The point > of energy consumption is worth mentioning. I have an experimental > server here, it's a P1 150 MHz with 128 MB RAM. For learning > purposes completely sufficient to me. > > > Backup machine if disks are good. > > Or backup server if added some exchangable media (tape / DVD-RAM), > inexpensive solution for automated data backup. > > > Getting a decent performing desktop on there is as Polytropon said, a > > project you'd do for fun, not cause you need a desktop. > > That's correct. But hey, you learn a lot by building such a > system, and in the end, you have your "ultimate desktop" right > fitting your needs - not what the developers of let's say KDE > are convinced you're wanting. That's a lot of work, I know, > but once you're done, you can dump / restore this system to > other machines of that kind (eventually needing to change > some settings). > > > > The final quality of the machine is a direct result from the > work you will decide to put in it. If you just want to do > "fast, fast", the machine will be sloooooowwwww... :-) I was running KDE3 on a 750MHz box and it was really slow. I can't even imagine trying it on a 350MHz box. Stick to one of the simpler smaller apps if you need a desktop. Beech -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812010226.46883.beech>