Homogenizing antiX19 User Interface (proof of concept)

Forum Forums General Screenshots Homogenizing antiX19 User Interface (proof of concept)

This topic contains 28 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by oops May 16-4:48 am.

Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #21435
    Member
    noClue
    noClue

    Performance according to htop, seems to idle on:

    — iceWM at about 360 MB . Conky reads out at under 600M
    — fluxbox at about 330 MB
    — jwm at about 322MB
    — openbox idles at just under 350MB

    You are designing a memory hog.
    KDE Plasma uses 400 MB.
    Gnome3 550 MB.

    Unique selling proposition?

    How strange is to be anything at all. (Alice in Wonderland)

    #21438
    Member
    manyroads
    manyroads

    Interesting comment, from my perspective on my hardware it looks thin, given xfce on the same machine of mine idles at 1.3GB of mem.

    Pax Vobiscum,
    Mark Rabideau aka. manyroads
    "Don't believe everything you think."

    #21440
    Member
    noClue
    noClue

    Well, resources usage differs somewhat because of HW, services, drivers in use and such but …

    XFCE uses mostly around 250 ~ 400 MB. (Screenshots 1 ~ 3)

    You should never come over 120 ~ 150 MB RAM at idle, otherwise, why install some ‘old school’ WMs?
    antiX is getting installed on antique HW with 256 MB (of old and slow) RAM.

    As you can see, Cinnamon, Gnome, Plasma … they are all in 400 ~ 800 MB range.

    Just please don’t try to beat Manjaro Awesome or Manjaro i3! 😉
    (Last screenshot)

    How strange is to be anything at all. (Alice in Wonderland)

    #21451
    Member
    manyroads
    manyroads

    Since your hardware and memory consumption usage is actually irrelevant to this discussion, let me provide you consistent data from my development platform.

    From htop you will see all the ‘bloat’ I have added as part of the 340M running on the iceWM development desktop I am using. (see htop screenshot below: icewm-homogenized-htop.png)

    By way of comparison, let’s analyze what we have using a consistent data base. I will use my development platform and start from the bottom build to show where the system’s memory use grows. Keep in mind everything I will add is optional (because I have not removed any of the base antiX system).

    First let’s look at a naked base space-icewm from which my blended system is built (iceWM with SpaceFM).
    — space-icewm with only the icewm panel running (no add-ons beyond SpaceFM) idles at 230MB on my VB machine

    Next:
    — when I add conky memory consumption increases to: 240MB

    Then if I add either of the following compositors to the mix on the base space-icewm platform I get:
    — 313MB of memory consumed when compton is added (screenshot included below: with compton.png)
    — 300MB of memory consumed if xcompmgr is used instead of compton

    Thus the remaining ~27MB of memory spent on my “current” base platform provides the following services:
    — a semantic launcher/ search tool (kupfer)
    — tint2 to run and manage the task bar,
    — jgmenu (an xfce whisker-like menu with internal searching)
    — a weather app
    — a calendar popup

    First let me make clear that my objective is NOT to build the leanest machine in the world. It is rather to build a Desktop that is functional for a typical laptop user, nice to look at (following reasonably common user interface techniques/ approaches), consumes computer resources frugally, is easily tailored, and provides a good balance of features to cost. My targeted hardware platform is a typical 5-10 year old laptop. To that end, I assume about 2GB of memory, 100GB of disk, and 1366×768 screen. Thus to my mind the use of let’s say 400/2048 (~20%) of memory seems reasonable and appropriate (and note, my actual current use is close to 340MB of memory, not 400MB).

    If you think that my use of about 30MB of memory is wasteful, then by all means follow your heart and don’t use what I build. There is absolutely no requirement that you (or anyone) use my work. If you can provide a better result offering the same or equivalent features, I encourage you to do so. Everyone will benefit.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by manyroads.

    Pax Vobiscum,
    Mark Rabideau aka. manyroads
    "Don't believe everything you think."

    #21455
    Member
    noClue
    noClue

    We could ‘fight’ or ‘discuss’ many things, but discussing a sense of nonsense will still stay nonsense (== will bring us nowhere).

    This was my antiX 17.1.
    I don’t have it any more.
    You can double those numbers.
    That was 32-bit; needs less RAM.

    If you have more then double, then you do it for no good reason.
    In that case, one can also install LXDE or XFCE too.
    350 MB RAM for MX and it looks better.
    240 MB for LXDE and it looks …

    32-bit XFCE is happy with 170 ~ 200 MB RAM.
    It will blow your ‘Puzzle O/S’ in just about every aspect.
    It’ll look better, it’ll be easier to use, it’ll be easier to modify …

    Maybe you should better consider building MyXantiX (Manyroads eXperimental antiX)
    and let antiX stay what it is: The operating system for old machines.
    It’s the last of it’s kind for that matter.

    However, not my pair of shoes.

    P.S.
    Maybe you missed a couple of my posts where I explicitly stated that I never was using, do not use and will never use antiX.

    How strange is to be anything at all. (Alice in Wonderland)

    #21553
    Member
    Avatar
    PPC

    Hi folks.

    @Mark- I just wanted to say this: you are doing a good and hard work, and some of it may really be used in a official antiX version (like, for example- icon themes, windows decorations, even a common menu system). But, there’s some merit to the idea that the DE’s you are using are a bit or resource hogs when compared to the usual antiX version. I use, antiX because it’s very low ram use (even when I added my own “eye candy”), it’s still well below half of the RAM uses you currently have.
    Folks with very low specs pc’s won’t be able to use that, but people with more ram (above 1 Gig or RAM, for example), that are most pc owners now in existence, probably will be glad to have more more appealing DE options, and best of all, what I believe antiX can benefit greatly from- DE’s uniformity (even if you don’t like having the same windows decorations in ICEwm and fluxbox, I believe having that option is great- in my own opinion FB’s windows decorations are well… mostly terrible. there are some usable ones, but the default one made me shy away from FB for months, until I tried to change it).
    I personally cant wait to try, for example antiX OpenBox, just out of curiosity… and having it with a great looking configuration would be great.

    My main point- having the option to Homogenize antiX 19 User Interface can only be a good thing
    P.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by PPC.
    #21558
    Member
    manyroads
    manyroads

    Thank you @ppc. I agree with everything you noted. I am also surprised that Openbox on antiX and MX seem to have an almost identical footrpint; just under 300MB. Clearly for people wanting to run in under 1MB a 300MB footprint is ‘not for them’. As you said antiX can be thinned down to nearly ‘invisible’.

    For me what I’m discovering is that both antiX and MX are very tailorable. Either/both offer very nice tools.

    Once I get things to work decently; and, we get to a beta+ version of antiX19, I’ll publish an installable version for people to beat up and tweak.

    If you want to see what the Openbox will look like, you might follow the next draft release on MX (it will be out later this week). 😉

    Pax Vobiscum,
    Mark Rabideau aka. manyroads
    "Don't believe everything you think."

    #21559
    Member
    noClue
    noClue

    @manyroads

    Try to do the exact same installations as 32 & 64 bit (if you have time).

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see the RAM usage sink for some 30%.

    However, you should keep in mind that 32-bit XFCE is
    at approx. 180 ~ 220 MB RAM (if well done).

    How strange is to be anything at all. (Alice in Wonderland)

    #21562
    Member
    oops
    oops

    @manyroads

    Try to do the exact same installations as 32 & 64 bit (if you have time).

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see the RAM usage sink for some 30%.

    However, you should keep in mind that 32-bit XFCE is
    at approx. 180 ~ 220 MB RAM (if well done).

    Right with a 32-bit at the beginning, 141MB (with redshift-gtk, udiskie, lxterminal);

    
    inxi -S
    System:
      Host: antix1 Kernel: 5.0.0 i686 bits: 32 Desktop: IceWM 1.4.2 
      Distro: antiX-17.4.1_386-full Helen Keller 28 March 2019 
    
    $ inxi -S
    Memory:
      RAM: total: 1.90 GiB used: 158.0 MiB (8.1%) 
      RAM Report: permissions: Unable to run dmidecode. Root privileges required. 
    
    With Palemoon and 9 tabs;
    $ inxi -m
    Memory:
      RAM: total: 1.90 GiB used: 338.5 MiB (17.4%) 
      RAM Report: permissions: Unable to run dmidecode. Root privileges required. 
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by oops.
    #21570
    Member
    linuxdaddy
    linuxdaddy

    Hi manyroads,

    I haven’t used openbox much, but I think options are good to have and some
    others on here have posted interest a few times. If you need to look at a lot
    of themes for the different wms .. https://www.box-look.org
    has a good variety for ideas and inspiration.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by linuxdaddy. Reason: had to fix link

    Normal == 🙂
    depends on the surrounding crowd ?!

    #21593
    Member
    noClue
    noClue

    Options to have more preconfigured WM’s available are always viable and very welcome but, they also have to be or stay usable and be reasonably well done.

    Homogenizing IceWM and Fluxbox, making OpenBox use more then 120 ~ 150 MB RAM or adding transparency in a bad manner is not welcome.

    If you get a transparent Geany or Terminal or the OpenBox that uses 350 MB RAM … hmmm …

    One can get transparency in XFCE, without Compton and under 200 MB.

    One can install KDE Plasma that needs 400 MB RAM.

    No matter how you turn it, KDE Plasma will beat that OpenBox with Compton, Polybar, Tint2 and Synapse by far and in any way.

    OpenBox runs on Debian Stretch with 100 MB RAM, LXDE with 130 MB, looks good and it’s even pretty usable.

    Examples bellow: LXDE and OpenBox with Conky and Tint2 (incl. transparency but, right done).

    How strange is to be anything at all. (Alice in Wonderland)

    #21619
    Member
    manyroads
    manyroads

    Moderators please close this thread…

    Pax Vobiscum,
    Mark Rabideau aka. manyroads
    "Don't believe everything you think."

    #21630
    Member
    Koo
    Koo

    I agree with manyroads #21619
    Maybe it is time to dump antiX my computers one Xeon desktop and two i5 laptops are just to fast for antiX. But then again it is two-thirds + Debian anyways.

    #21638
    Member
    oops
    oops

    IMHO, It’s still the time to keep a tiny antix (I386 & amd64) but also time to allow to antix to be a real multi-users OS (switch_user sessions via ctrl+Alt+F7, ctrl+Alt+F8, etc) so a little bit more heavy too (maybe with some other versions?).

Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.