Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Dan J. Smesk » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster. I
have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux? This
is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and Windows
2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

Dan

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by JEDIDI » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:>Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using

        What makes you think it's just KDE?

        I could be Netscape crapulence, or KDE itself could be bogging you
        down in some way. Without isolating KDE from Netscrape it's hard
        to tell.

        Also, have you tried various versions of Netscrape including Mozilla?
        Have you tried other browsers like Opera or even kfm?

Quote:>Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster. I
>have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux? This
>is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and Windows
>2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

        Opera runs circles around either NS or IE on Windows itself so
        it's not entirely unlikely that it's just Netscape.

--

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \

                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Mig Mi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster. I
> have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux?

Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
faster than IE.
Its either an old version of Netscape or if you use a modem it could be the
modemsettings or the initstring(and no modemsettings have nothing to do with
the OS).
 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Charlie Eber » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster. I
> have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux? This
> is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and Windows
> 2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

> Dan

Funny,

My wife and I just had this battle.  Her NT workstation is slower than
my netscape.
And the KDE browser is the quickest of all.

I think you have your buffering setting all screwed up.  

Charlie

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Michael Bor » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
> faster than IE.

No shortcomings?  I know it's an advocacy NG but could we mix in a little
reality?

Mike

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Dan J. Smesk » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Nope, default settings on both. I think KDE just sucks... I wish someone
would write better drivers with better 2d acceleration support



> > Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> > Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times
faster. I
> > have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux?
This
> > is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and
Windows
> > 2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

> > Dan

> Funny,

> My wife and I just had this battle.  Her NT workstation is slower than
> my netscape.
> And the KDE browser is the quickest of all.

> I think you have your buffering setting all screwed up.

> Charlie

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Don Werv » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


KDE has nothing to do with the way _Netscape_ interacts with _X_.  It's
the window manager, true, but Netscape does all of it's own interacting
with the X server, and doesn't go through KDE.

So the 2D acceleration is handled in X.  But this has nothing to do with
HTML rendering.

Try the latest Mozilla milestone; I've noticed it to be _much_ faster
than IE under Windows, and under Linux it just flies.  NS is about the
same as IE in my experience (in terms of rendering speed).


> Nope, default settings on both. I think KDE just sucks... I wish someone
> would write better drivers with better 2d acceleration support




> > > Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> > > Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times
> faster. I
> > > have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux?
> This
> > > is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and
> Windows
> > > 2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

> > > Dan

> > Funny,

> > My wife and I just had this battle.  Her NT workstation is slower than
> > my netscape.
> > And the KDE browser is the quickest of all.

> > I think you have your buffering setting all screwed up.

> > Charlie

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Mig Mi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> > Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
> > faster than IE.

> No shortcomings?  I know it's an advocacy NG but could we mix in a little
> reality?

OK.. but it depends on your point of view. For me there are only a few
small things that irritate me.. such as
 - easy way to install fonts (make the right files, restart the xserver and
add the fontpath to the init file)
 - app to view realtime what connections are made right now
-  easy way to configure a personal firewall
- etc. etc.. i can live without these but they would make my Linux life
easyer
 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Jim Richards » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 23:23:34 +0200,

 brought forth the following words...:



>> > Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
>> > faster than IE.

>> No shortcomings?  I know it's an advocacy NG but could we mix in a little
>> reality?

>OK.. but it depends on your point of view. For me there are only a few
>small things that irritate me.. such as
> - easy way to install fonts (make the right files, restart the xserver and
>add the fontpath to the init file)

can't help you here

Quote:> - app to view realtime what connections are made right now

netstat, ethereal, tcpdump, others

Quote:>-  easy way to configure a personal firewall

pmfirewall works nicely, webmin does firewall rules but I haven't used it for
that so can't comment directly.

Quote:>- etc. etc.. i can live without these but they would make my Linux life
>easyer

Linux is not without flaws, it's just that it's flaws are fewer and less
important (to me anyway) than the alternatives.
--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Jim Ros » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:> KDE has nothing to do with the way _Netscape_ interacts with _X_.  It's
> the window manager, true, but Netscape does all of it's own interacting
> with the X server, and doesn't go through KDE.

> So the 2D acceleration is handled in X.  But this has nothing to do with
> HTML rendering.

> Try the latest Mozilla milestone; I've noticed it to be _much_ faster
> than IE under Windows, and under Linux it just flies.  NS is about the
> same as IE in my experience (in terms of rendering speed

You must have a very different frame of reference.
So far Mozilla is slow.  Slow loading the app, slow to render pages.
Until recently Mozilla always needed 20MB of ram, and didn't cache webpages.

Under Linux Mozilla is even slower.  In fact resizing is very painful (you'd
think you were running the Windows version under emulation).
And the toolbar always seems to be distorted with missing parts, parts from
webpages, whatever.

It still isn't that stable, and under Linux Mozilla doesn't seem to want to
run with an icon (i.e. must start it from a terminal).

Browsers in Linux seem poor.  Especially Amaya and Opera.

Jim

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Jim Ros » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster.
I
> have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux? This
> is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and Windows
> 2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.

> Dan

Because it is.
It amazes me the KDE browser is as good as it is.
Have you seen all the poor attempts at a web browser there are out there?

Amaya was suppose to be a proof of concept for html 4.0 is it is very poor.
Opera seem poor.
The Gnome browser Express is poor (does it even attempt to render a
table???).

I must conclude it is extremely difficulty to make a decent web browser.

Judging from cross platform software like Mozilla and AbiWord, the Linux
environment seems
to slow things down (lack of mature thread support, less advanced 2D/3D
video drivers/servers),
lack quality fonts (smaller selection of TrueType fonts, lack of
anti-aliasing support, etc).

Therefore these limitations seem to make it even more difficult to write a
good web browser for Linux.
There are many reasons for this (a good reason is the desktop was only
recently made a priority if Linux/Unix land).

Jim

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Cihl » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Judging from cross platform software like Mozilla and AbiWord, the Linux
> environment seems
> to slow things down (lack of mature thread support, less advanced 2D/3D
> video drivers/servers),
> lack quality fonts (smaller selection of TrueType fonts, lack of
> anti-aliasing support, etc).

> Therefore these limitations seem to make it even more difficult to write a
> good web browser for Linux.
> There are many reasons for this (a good reason is the desktop was only
> recently made a priority if Linux/Unix land).

As of yet, this is painfully true indeed.
Thread support in Linux has been just fine for 6 months or so,
though. The biggest problems lie in speed and user-friendliness.
These two problems have, however, recently been addressed with
the advent of XFree86 4.0, which is still not to be considered
stable enough for distributing.
I heard, though not experienced, that the adding of
(Truetype-)fonts is much easier than before.
Also, the X-system (finally) gets a hook into the kernel (DRI),
which improves speed -dramatically-. This would finally make
high-bandwidth DV a possibility, as well as high-performance
*.
 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Darren Winsp » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 02:59:43 -0400, Jim Ross


> It still isn't that stable, and under Linux Mozilla doesn't seem to want to
> run with an icon (i.e. must start it from a terminal).

No you don't.  Try the command "cd <where_mozilla_is>/dist/bin;
./mozilla".

--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts.  Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Darren Winsp » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:05:48 -0400, Jim Ross


> Judging from cross platform software like Mozilla and AbiWord, the Linux
> environment seems
> to slow things down (lack of mature thread support, less advanced 2D/3D
> video drivers/servers),
> lack quality fonts (smaller selection of TrueType fonts, lack of
> anti-aliasing support, etc).

For a start; the slow development of Mozilla is not due to Linux.
Around 97% of Mozilla is now platform *independant*.  The reasons for
the time taken to develop Mozilla are:

1) The current version is only a year and a half old (They only started
   the new codebase in Oct. 1998)
2) They are rebuilding the browser from scratch with far fewer
   resources than MS are throwing into the Windows version of IE alone.
3) Mozilla is practically a platform rather than a browser.  They've
   developed XPToolkit, XPCOM and a few other bits which have allowed
   them to make it very easy to port to other platforms.  Remember,
   WinIE and MacIE don't even have the same rendering engine.

And about the anti-aliasing; Windows' anti-aliasing is nothing to be
proud of.

--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts.  Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.

 
 
 

Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000

Post by Jim Ros » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Quote:> As of yet, this is painfully true indeed.
> Thread support in Linux has been just fine for 6 months or so,
> though. The biggest problems lie in speed and user-friendliness.
> These two problems have, however, recently been addressed with
> the advent of XFree86 4.0, which is still not to be considered
> stable enough for distributing.
> I heard, though not experienced, that the adding of
> (Truetype-)fonts is much easier than before.
> Also, the X-system (finally) gets a hook into the kernel (DRI),
> which improves speed -dramatically-. This would finally make
> high-bandwidth DV a possibility, as well as high-performance
> *.

Now if anti-aliasing support gets done I'll be very happy.
Even with TrueType fonts, without anti-aliasing, fonts look jagged.

I know I'm being picky on this, but it would make Linux+X look much more
professional,
especially when viewing a presentation were the first slide usually contains
a large font and a picture.
Everyone notices I'm sure, if not understanding why it looks bad.

I can wait it XFree86 4.0 matures.  I agree it will be killer.

Jim