<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Hm. Doesn't seem to be significantly more than with any other gnome<br>program.</blockquote>
<div><br>Indeed, it's the whole gnome stack more or less, as with other gnome apps.<br> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Why you're avoiding Gnome dependencies?</blockquote><div><br>As you point out below to save startup time and RAM. Even a few megs can make the difference<br>between your app fitting or starting to cause disk thrashing because of swapping.
<br>Even if these are not a drastic savings given that the rest of the system including gtk is already quite resource hungry<br>they are still savings.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I tested some gnome programs (e.g. epiphany and dia)<br>on P166 with 96MB of RAM and:<br>- Epiphany didn't use more memory than Firefox (considering that<br> more of it's libs are shared with the other Gtk programs)<br>- Dia which has gnome deps, worked quite OK
</blockquote><div><br>Right, firefox is a large cpu/ram hog.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Gnome deps don't affect particularly the performance of the program,
<br>when compared to plain Gtk version, except slightly for the startup speed.</blockquote><div><br>right. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Memory usage is increased (besides additional deps, they have more features,<br>such as printing), but if you compare their memory usage e.g. to running</blockquote><div><br>printing is actually provided by libgomeprint which we use as well since it does not depend
<br>on anything else. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Firefox, I don't see (m)any of them using more memory.
I.e. user can still<br>run the programs and they are responsive, if he just doesn't run too many<br>of them at the same time.<br><br>Because there are additional libraries, more space is used from the<br>ISO-image/CD/harddrive, but as libraries are shared, it's only one-time
<br>increase of (tens of) megs(?).</blockquote><div><br>even if libraries are mostly shared, there is some data which is not shared, so <br>every app started adds up to the memory usage because of data in the library.<br>
Look at recent discussions on the gnome-performance list.<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">What *can* be a problem is that if the applications require other processes
<br>to run at the same time (gconf, gnome-vfs etc) *and* those processes don't<br>quit when last client accessing them quits. I.e. the system is constantly<br>using more memory than "required".</blockquote><div>
<br>right, that's why I try avoiding gconf, which again is not too big but considering it is<br>mostly useless outside gnome, it is too bug for what it offers in our case.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The main issue I had with both Gtk and Gnome programs was that their<br>menus (+submenus) were pretty slow to open and close (on P166...). Dialogs<br>were also slow to open, but they are used less often than menus, so it
<br>wasn't annoying.<br></blockquote></div><br>indeed, the gtk engines and drawing methods for icons and text can be quite time consuming.<br><br>Jani<br>