The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Performance
by hbc on Tuesday 21/May/2002, @04:39
|
Thats 6 minutes (no spelling error). Everthing is installed and works correctly though (even the sound).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Performance
by Ralf Habacker on Tuesday 21/May/2002, @08:40
|
This was only true for a pre alpha release. The beta release starts much faster (I have measured about 2 minutes (30 second for the second start) for the whole desktop on a PIII 733 MHZ Toshiba laptop).
Regards
Ralf
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Performance
by cylab on Tuesday 21/May/2002, @15:34
|
1) its his fun project, so he will continue even if you continue to give such dumb comments.
2) if any developer will stop coding, because his code does not perform the way he wishes at the beginning, we wouldnt have any software at all. (anybody say mozilla :) )
3) i like it. particular in combination with remote x-sessions where no full blown x/window manager is installed.
4) if it runs, it runs.. i usually start my pc once and use it all day, so the 6 extra minutes for startup are marginal.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Performance
by Ralf Habacker on Wednesday 22/May/2002, @01:01
|
> 4) if it runs, it runs.. i usually start my pc once and use it all day, so the 6 extra minutes for startup are marginal.
... and this works also with laptop standby modes (expect combined with screen resolution changes on xfree currently), so you have to start only once a week or less.
BTW: Why does windows need so much time to start if many applications are installed ?
Answer: In the boot process they preload all the needed dll's, so that application starting time is usable. If this is similar done for kde, than the loading time is like the value for second starting.
Regards
Ralf
Enjoy kde-cygwin
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|