I would stop using KDE if it needed more memory than

16% (305 votes)
9% (161 votes)
22% (420 votes)
28% (531 votes)
14% (255 votes)
5% (103 votes)
2% (34 votes)
4% (75 votes)
Total votes: 1884


This poll is pretty meaningless. It's hard to say if the poll refers to the memory actually consumed by KDE, or the memory a system would need to have in order to comfortably run KDE.

For the former, anything more than 32MB is a bit much. 16MB is bad enough. I run thin clients, you see, and need to pack a lot of users into 4GB of RAM. KDE's per-user memory cost is actually very low (thanks to effective use of shared libraries and shared static data) so it's quite feasable for such uses. For that thin client server, I barely even care what the first-user cost of KDE is.

On the other hand, my old laptop had 384MB of RAM. If KDE and the base OS gobbled more than 64 or 96MB of that, it'd be pretty harsh, and I'd be inclined to ditch KDE in favour of something lighter weight. In that context I don't care in the slightest about per-user cost, or the actual RAM needed for KDE - only about the total system memory requirements.

As such, "it depends".

By ringerc at Mon, 01/02/2006 - 02:07

The poll is actually intentionally phrased the way it is.

By Lubos Lunak at Mon, 01/02/2006 - 11:59