Huh ? We do optimize as needed, but optimization is the last step in coding. Never ever start optimizing before features are completed unless you are locking for headaches down the road. However, there were several obvious optimizations done with respect to loading config files and loading already used librabries before KDE 2.0 release.

Comparisons with Windows is also IMHO moot since we have no integration into any kernel period. We also do not load every DLL this side of the Mississipi to boast performance. Well that is not entirely right since we do similar thingsby utilizing kdeinit so that every applications will not attempt to load and re-loacate already loaded libraries, but still not to the extent it is done in Windows. Anyways IMO neither KDE nor X cannot afford to do things that Windows can for portability reasons, but I personally feel amuzed when people generally accuse developers of not optimizing or not knowing how to optimize before really understanding what issues are involved !! There are many things one needs to consider before going willy nilly into optimazations. I am sure they will be forth coming in future releases of KDE...

Down the line one thing that might improve speed is multi-threading. When Qt gets to be muti-threaded then we can do the same thing to KDE and this might indeed boost performace a great deal specially with GUI blocking problems which tends to be the thing most people notice and associate with performance problems...

BTW, on my machine a bare bones installation of Windows 95 was about the same speed my KDE 2.x setup above with all debuging enabled...

Regards,
Dawit A.

Good answer, except for the multithreading part.

Multithreading doesn't improve speed, it improves apparent speed, which is quite different.

Multithreading is actually less efficient. On the surface, doing many things at once like a multithreaded program without using real threads seems more complicated, but real multithreaded programming has so many hidden pitfalls and debugging problems that you would probably have found the increased difficulty of singlethreaded code not that great.

The Accelerating Apache project for example, has managed to make Apache 1.3 up to ten times faster and Apache 2.0 up to four times faster on the SPECweb96 benchmark. A major part of this was ditching threads for their State Thread package, which simulates multithreaded behavior without actually using threads (similar to GNU Pth, by the way).

Perhaps people are using badly built binaries?? First when I tried a kde 2 beta (binaries), I thought that it was really slow but after compiling qt and kde myself, with exceptions disabled, etc., I found kde 2 to be blazingly fast (especially considering what it actually does). When I say blazingly fast I mean it's as fast (sometimes faster, sometimes not quite as fast) as windows while being much more comfortable and configurable.

Anyway, thanks kde developers!

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by Oliver Immich on Thursday 21/Dec/2000, @16:15

  Okay, to be more precise on the performance thing and to avoid misinterpretation of what could be called fast and what could be called slow in kde2: The launching of apps itself is it which decreased my enthusiasm about kde2. I absolutely agree to what people said above, that it become quite boring to wait for an standard app like kmail or korganizer to come up. I even cannot make the binaries responsible for that since I went through three kde2-releases after final came out and all were the same slow block of software. If I should be wrong, I may ask, why didn't the kde-team give advice to the distributors to do their job properly.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by kdeFan on Friday 22/Dec/2000, @14:43

  If I should be wrong, I may ask, why didn't the kde-team give advice to the distributors to do their job properly. I think that may be where the real problem is. Maybe the packagers just aren't building optimally (not to complain - their efforts are appreciated). I know that I thought kde2 was slow until I found the thread here on the dot about how to compile kde (and qt in particular) correctly. It has been speedy since then. I used gnome for a week or so, and it wasn't any faster than my kde2 desktop. Aside from that I can only assume that the speed issue is more subjective than anything, because I just can't relate to your experience. For me, kmail opens quickly (certainly quicker than Outlook did) and I never really feel that I'm waiting for it. Anyway, I hope it gets worked out.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by Nick on Friday 22/Dec/2000, @13:29

  Reality check.. This argument does not hold water. If you don't like it, and you don't have the skills to improve it, then the best you can do is attempt to raise the issue. That's how things improve. Saying "If you don't like it, don't use it" is a rather ignorant argument. It's apparent that these people like KDE, but they want to see it improve. They are making good points about the direction KDE needs to go. Windows and KDE are in competition, and thus comparing the end user experience of KDE with Windows is a valid comparison. We all want KDE and the various platforms it supports to gain wider acceptance, and that will require it to surpass windows in functionality, speed, and ease of use.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by japy on Friday 22/Dec/2000, @22:31

  >If you don't like it, and you don't have the >skills to improve it, then the best you can do >is attempt to raise the issue. just like what i said, deliver constructive criticism, not simply complain about it and make it appear kde is totaly useless. >Saying "If you don't like it, don't use it" is >a rather ignorant argument. what would you feel when your favorite desktop is undersiege? saying "i used to run kde 1.1.2on my prehistoric computer and it works lightning fast, while suddenly when i install kde 2 it crawls" is what i believe a rather ignorant argument. yes we all want kde to improve, but theres a proper place for this, and thats the bug tracking system. im sorry if i sounded so rude, i recognize that this is a disccusion and respect everyones opinion, but people wanting to switch to kde and wants to learn more first, might interpret all of this as sign that kde is not a worthy alternative. besides this is dot.kde.org, AFAIK, this site gives out good news and information about the beauty of kde, we are suppose to thank the developers here, its very irritating just after you have read a nice news about kde, then people will flood in their misseries and griefs etc. (should'nt it be all addressed to complaints.kde.org?) >Windows and KDE are in competition, and thus >comparing the end user experience of KDE with >Windows is a valid comparison. i did not say they aren't, i said kde is totally different to windows, when it comes to design, windows is the operating system itself, which makes it more integrated with its compononents, on the other hand kde runs on top of x, which in turn runs on top of linux. windows can play tricks it wants with regards to resources, but kde can do only what it is permitted by x and linux respectively. but of course, both are desktop, and that is where we can compare windows with kde: windows has intallshield, kde has ./configure, make, make install, kde has virtual desktops, windows doesn't, kde users are cute, windows user's aren't (ha ha ha) and many more. you see, we can only compare what we can see and feel on the outside, on the inside its totally different. and that is why kde's performance cannot be directly compared to windows, (not of course if we have a microsoft windows desktop environment for x!) but lets simply agree on one thing nick, before we start a "words war", lets just be happy kde users! may the force be with you all!

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by Olivier LAHAYE on Friday 22/Dec/2000, @13:48

  I totally agree. More over, Speed of kde2 is the same as win98 on my system. The only slow thing is XFree86 V4.01 (Frame buffer is realy slow) On thing to improve performace (if you own a very very very old obsolete computer ;-) ) is to choose a simple styles just like windows (without pixmaps). Functionnality is very important (IMHO), because it is a race to functionnality. If you quit the race, then peoples moves to the concurents. I've heard the same things between MUI and BGUI under Amiga (MUI is to KDE what BGUI is to GNOME) People using 7MHz 68000 expected high drawing speed with fancy bitmaps (they said that it was slower than the standard system (plain colors) and thus, that that was inacceptable! ) Maybe peoples could ask for high speed on 80386SX16 VGA systems? I think this attitude is stupid. The most important thing is an API that allow high developpement speed. That is the most important thing. at KDE2: This model (C++, Qt, And mode) allowed koffice in one year and lots of applications in few weeks.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by MichaelM on Saturday 23/Dec/2000, @05:51

  The only slow thing is XFree86 V4.01 (Frame buffer is realy slow) Not getting involved in the argument, but I actually thought X 4.0.1 was rather zippy (especially compared with X 3.3.X), but then again, I'm not using Frame Buffer

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by Tonttu Torvinen on Saturday 23/Dec/2000, @13:18

  My comment was meant to be 'constructive critisism'. Critisism can always be taken as complaining - it just depends on the point of view and the attitude. Sure I currently have quite an old and slow computer, but I see no reason why I should spent a lot of money to upgrade it when I can do most of the things I need to do with this P200 64Mb (I can guarantee that I can imagine hundreds of better ways to spend my money). I'm not interested in having always the latest new gadgets, but what I want to have is to be able to do the things I need to do in the most comfortable way. Even though Win95 runs a lot faster than Linux&KDE, I've noticed KDE to be the best environment for me in the most cases. As the speed is the biggest problem here, I would like to see also this part to be improved. Sorry to say, but what you said doesn't sound very 'open'. Rather than openly discussing the problems people are having with KDE, you would like us to shut our mouths, be quiet and pretend to be fully satisfied - while there still is lot to improve.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by japy on Saturday 23/Dec/2000, @18:20

  sorry people!

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by japy on Sunday 24/Dec/2000, @09:58

  my girl went away, so I was said I nervous

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: Embedding external parts into KDE by Tonttu Torvinen on Monday 25/Dec/2000, @10:18

  No problem, I was just trying to be constructively critical also to what you said.. ;)

  [ Reply To This | View ]