Tuning for very little RAM

[Charlie Kester]

On Wed 06 Jan 2010 at 09:52:32 PST Warren Block wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Charlie Kester wrote:
>>
>>Assuming you have to use X, you'll want to avoid heavyweight desktop
>>environments like KDE or Gnome.  I like tiled window managers like musca
>>or dwm myself, but your skeptics will probably want a more traditional
>>window manager (aka MS-Windows clone) like xfce or openbox.
>
>Hey, xfce is not like Windows, it's fast.  

LOL

>If you want really light and Windows-like, icewm.  Although last time I
>tried it, desktop icons--the lifeblood of the typical Windows
>user--required external programs (idesk) and were a hassle.

I don't think we want to hijack this thread or this forum and turn it
into a debate over which window managers and apps are best.  As I
pointed out in my followup to my original reply, there's already a
voluminous discussion on those topics.  I think we should simply point
interested readers in that direction and let them make up their own
minds.

>
>>When you say "internet (with plugins)" I think you mean Firefox.  If
>>this isn't a hard and fast requirement, take a look at some of the more
>>lightweight browsers like Midori, Kazehakase or Arora.  (I'd recommend
>>even more lightweight alternatives like surf or elinks, but I don't
>>think your skeptics will approve.)
>
>AdblockPlus and FlashBlock are near requirements for browsing, 
>particularly for slow machines.  Maybe they'll work with non-Firefox 
>gecko browsers.

Good point.  Something anyone considering these Firefox alternatives
should investigate.

>
>>Same for OpenOffice.  There are alternatives to each of the apps in the
>>OpenOffice suite that might not have all the same bells and whistles,
>>but will run in much less RAM.
>
>gnumeric is nice for a spreadsheet.  May not be particularly 
>lightweight, but lighter than OO.

Same with Abiword for a word processor.  But again, we probably
shouldn't get too deep into the discussion of various apps.