On 平成 20/07/27, at 13:56, Albert Cahalan wrote: > Greg Smith writes: > >> I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very >> concerned about "performance". They say that Sugar is slow. I'm >> probing >> to get more details but I want to evaluate the options in parallel. > ... >> This may cost us significantly if we don't show improvement. Send me >> ideas. Any quick wins would be considered, even if they have a >> downside >> in another metric. > > Two alternatives to offer: > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Edubuntu > http://edubuntu.org/ > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce > http://www.xfce.org/ > > It's not Sugar, but it's not XP either. I hope even the Sugar > fans will agree that if pushing Sugar means a win for XP, then > pushing Sugar is not the thing to do.
As far as that goes, there is an interesting discussion on the subject of performance on /.: http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08/07/26/239231.shtml I'm sure the raw discussion would not be appropriate, but quotes from it, and quotes from the blog referenced, might defuse expectations that are just a wee tad bit early here. > _______________________________________________ > Sugar mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar > Joel Rees (waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out, to test Steve's willingness to switch again.) _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
