Preliminary Benchmarks: Unity vs. Gnome-Shell 258
fatalGlory writes "Despite some initial reservations about Gnome-shell, it appears to be coming out very nicely. In some preliminary benchmarking tests I've been conducting, Ubuntu's Unity desktop on 11.04 Natty uses roughly double the memory that Gnome-shell uses."
Unity sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Bad test, right result (Score:4, Informative)
He says Gnome-Shell uses software rendering.. It's not true, fedora ships free 3D drivers for Intel, AMD/ATI and NVidia now.
Also, why use VLC when he could use Totem on all 3.And Why does he use apt-get in his test ?
Even though I like the result, it seems like a pretty lame test.
Comparing total memory usage is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Others have correctly pointed out that comparing memory usage on two different distros is pointless. On top of that, comparing total memory usage is stupid.
Look, you have memory in your system to be used. If you dug into it and found out that most of that memory consisted of massive, unused libraries, duplicate code, empty datastructures, or garbage that wasn't getting cleaned up, then sure, you could give it a hard time. But if it's full of cached images and icons so that the interface can be quicker and more responsive, well, isn't that why you have all that RAM?
A perfect program/OS would very quickly gobble up all available memory by storing and caching useful stuff...and then free it up the instant it was needed elsewhere. That turns out to be harder than it sounds, since procs generally don't know or care about totally memory usage, but still, the ideal should not be the opposite extreme.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Informative)
but since when has memory footprint been a "benchmark?" Really, we're talking roughly half a gig here, and who's running these on a system without at least 2?
Most netbooks are 1GB. half a gig is a lot just to run the desktop on a machine like that.