The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Iuri Fiedoruk on Friday 28/Mar/2008, @12:29
|
>I guess it depends on your comp
This is my point. Microsoft always tell everybody the next windows is faster, they even stated that vista is faster than XP!
KDE3 vs. KDE4 in my vision:
On modern rich-people machines? Yes.
Development world machines? Maybe, with luck.
Current third world: No way! Do you think EeePC can run KDE4 faster than 3? I do not.
Lucky I am in the middle of the equation, have a not bad job to work for HP here in Brazil, but let's please take some reality check, some machines here still sell with 256 MB RAM, most with 512 and my shine new one is only 1 GB.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by jospoortvliet on Friday 28/Mar/2008, @12:42
|
ehm... what you're saying is that KDE 4 is faster than KDE 3 if you use a dualcore 2.4 ghz proc with 3 gb of ram, but it is SLOWER than KDE 3 if you use a 800mhz proc with 256 mb ram?
That's not true. As I have both systems I describe above, I can assure you KDE 4 apps start faster. They draw slower. They use more memory thanks to the double buffering. But they start faster, no doubt possible.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Leo S on Friday 28/Mar/2008, @14:58
|
Thats the crux I think. KDE4 apps start faster, no matter the processor speed.
But if you have an older video card, the slower painting speed is really noticeable, so the whole desktop feels very sluggish. That's why you notice on older machines and not on newer ones.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by jos poortvliet on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @05:30
|
Oh, I can do that: "all videocards". Qt4 is simply much slower. Most of that seems to be due to bad drivers, but it is still annoying...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Aaron Seigo on Friday 28/Mar/2008, @15:03
|
> Do you think EeePC can run KDE4 faster than 3? I do not.
the best part about having access to devices like this is that you don't have to think, you can know. then you can avoid making arguments based on conjecture =) i've used kde4 on an EeePC and it is indeed as fast or faster than KDE3. soo.. there you go.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by schnebeck on Saturday 29/Mar/2008, @10:19
|
and I write this from an eee :-) KDE4 on eee is quite ok and its by far the best experience watching plasma on x11-intel compared to x11-ati or x11-nvidia. But I can say that KDE4 likes RAM so now I use 2GB on eee but 600MHz and KDE4 is ok.
Bye
Thorsten
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Iuri Fiedoruk on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @06:59
|
SO, if you have an eee with, let's say, 512 RAM, will it run kde4 faster or slower than 4?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Anon on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @07:08
|
Depends entirely on what you are doing, obviously - neither KDE3 nor KDE4 with a webbrowser with a few tabs open and a few Kwrite sessions, say, will come close to using 512MB, so the amount of RAM is entirely irrelevant.
If you have more/ more demanding apps open, then KDE4 and its apps will push you into swap faster than KDE3, which will slow things down when switching apps. Assuming an app is fully loaded into RAM, though, then again, the amount of RAM is completely irrelevant.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Iuri Fiedoruk on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @14:13
|
And it's important to remember linux/kde is much less resource hunger than Winodws Vista, but still a bit over XP (in my humble testing case) :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Whatever Noticed on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @14:48
|
i have kde4 on my laptop with opensuse 10.3 and 256 mb ram (of which 128 mb is shared video memory), and kde4 does indeed run faster than kde3.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Fool on Friday 28/Mar/2008, @15:55
|
Maybe I just wasn't clear, Kde4 apps start a lot than kde3 apps on the same computer. Now we may have different definitions of speed. Kde4 apps paint more slowly and in general work slow as sin (scrolling,tabs,rubberband, etc) if that is your meaning of speed, then yeah they are slower. But if you mean speed in terms startup times , then they are clealy quicker.
sigh, I wish I had a laptop with an intel gfx card.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Rsh on Saturday 29/Mar/2008, @04:07
|
> sigh, I wish I had a laptop with an intel gfx card.
Hah, and I regret trusting the freedom of Intel drivers. Freedom is no good if the product is C-R-A-P. Really, NVidia despite of being close provides really good support. My friend has a comparable notebook to mine with the only difference being the NVidia card instead of Intel one, it does wonders! Benchmarking in UT2004 gives him 75FPS while my Intel can barely handle 5FPS, even software rendering is faster. Do yourself a favor and don't buy Intel. :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Kevin Kofler on Saturday 29/Mar/2008, @23:58
|
... and end up with proprietary binary-only drivers which are completely useless (i.e. won't work at all) if you're running a newer version of the X.Org X11 server than NVidia is willing to support (e.g. 1.5 which will be in Fedora 9, but this comes up each time there's a new X server)? No thanks! Don't buy NVidia!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by mixx on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @03:15
|
"modern rich-people?" 800Mhz machines are out of the shelves since year 2000,
and 2,5-3,5 Ghz semprons aren't modern or expensive machines too.
Anyway, on a <1Ghz machines nobody would suggest to use kde3 too, if you
really want to put a desktop there go for something really light, as xfce or
other really minimal windows managers (damn small linux?).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by Morty on Sunday 30/Mar/2008, @03:41
|
Nonsens, KDE both 3 and 4 runs just fine on <1GHz machines. The eeePC are prof of that.
Running something so called "light" gives you nearly noting, it's an illusion. You still have to run applications, and the lighter alternatives does not provie a comprehensive application suite as KDE[1].
When you begin starting applications like browsers, emailclients, filemanagers and terminalwindows[2] the gain the lighter alternative gave you are more or less gone. As long as you don't exclusively use console applications that is, but since XFce are a GUI/DE you are supposed to use it as such.
[1]. You may end up running KDE applications anyway. Nothing wrong with that, but the 'it's lighter' argument are void.
[2]. Konsole with several tabs open are proven to use less resources than the same number of xterm windows
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by yman on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @08:00
|
I used KDE 3 on a laptop with 486 MHz processor and 256 MB RAM. It ran fine.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Good and Bad
by renoX on Wednesday 09/Apr/2008, @02:30
|
>"modern rich-people?" 800Mhz machines are out of the shelves since year 2000,
Not true: the EEE PC is underclocked to 600MHz..
>Anyway, on a <1Ghz machines nobody would suggest to use kde3 too
If this was true (and I don't think that this is the case), then it would be an indicator that KDE needs to be improved: a desktop environment shouldn't be resource hungry or more precisely should be configurable to use a minimum amount of CPU and memory.
I remember having a *snappy* desktop with BeOS on a Celeron333 PC, and it was a normal environment not a stripped down one.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
