Very Computer

by **Chad Dal** » Tue, 09 Feb 1999 04:00:00

I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
same machine).

If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

--
Chad Dale
E*TRADE Canada Inc.

vcard.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Moritz Moeller-Herrma** » Tue, 09 Feb 1999 04:00:00

>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------8B7A819D8AC2BDEEFC8BCAAA
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
>with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
>and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
>same machine).

>If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
>apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
>pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

Well methinks kde1.1 is faster, especially kwm and kpanel, but kfm is faster,
too.

KDE is not the fastest thing in the world, but E together with Netscape, gpanel
and a file browser cant be that much faster.

by **Mario Weilgun** » Tue, 09 Feb 1999 04:00:00

> I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
> with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
> and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
> same machine).

> If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
> apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
> pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

It might be faster, since some memory leaks are fixed. If you want to
know for sure, try it :-)

Mario

by **jami** » Tue, 09 Feb 1999 04:00:00

>>I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
>>with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
>>and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
>>same machine).

I found that KDE 1.1-pre1 and 1.1-pre2 ran very much slower on my
machine, kcontrol -init always hung in startkde in pre2, and it took any
application, including kde apps a ridiculous amount of time to start in
either of the 1.1.-pre versions. I went back to KDE 1.0
Were I not hooked on a few of the kdegames, I would probably have ditched
the bloatware for WindowMaker already.

(and it would be nice if kdebase didn't install all those po files anyway
when compiled --without-nls)

--

"There's a seeker born every minute."

by **Nikita V. Youshchenk** » Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:00:00

Quote:>>I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
>with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
>and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
>same machine).

Unfortunately, KDE _IS_ slow and memory-hungry.
1.1 is much better than 1.0 in terms of features and stability, but it is even
more large and slow (e.g. at startup).

To make it start faster, you may edit startkde script and remove sleeps from
there. On _fast_ machines it will make it faster.
To low memory usage a bit, remove unused modules (e.g. kwmsound - if you don't
use sounds) from startkde.

by **Mario Weilgun** » Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:00:00

> >>I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
> >>with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
> >>and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
> >>same machine).

> I found that KDE 1.1-pre1 and 1.1-pre2 ran very much slower on my
> machine, kcontrol -init always hung in startkde in pre2, and it took any
> application, including kde apps a ridiculous amount of time to start in
> either of the 1.1.-pre versions. I went back to KDE 1.0
> Were I not hooked on a few of the kdegames, I would probably have ditched
> the bloatware for WindowMaker already.

> (and it would be nice if kdebase didn't install all those po files anyway
> when compiled --without-nls)

> --

> "There's a seeker born every minute."

I recompiled the whole stuff with egcs 1.1, -Os -mpentium -fno-rtti
-fno-execptions. A complete system uses 23MB, including:
* 1 running emacs 20.x
* KDE 1.1
* 1 open kfm window
* kpm running
* 3 open konsole
* squid proxy running
* linux 2.0.35
* X running at 16bpp

Believe me, compiling yourself is much better.

Mario

--
_________________________________________________________________________
Mario Weilguni

G?stingerstr. 210
+43-316-685645
A-8051 Graz / Austria Mobil 0676 524
1719

by **Brian Hal** » Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:00:00

I like to compile myself also, using the compile_kde script. How would I
modify that script so it builds all the packages with options as below?

> I recompiled the whole stuff with egcs 1.1, -Os -mpentium -fno-rtti
> -fno-execptions.

by **Chris Hedemar** » Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:00:00

> I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
> with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
> and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
> same machine).

> If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
> apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
> pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

My experience on a mediocre box (Pentium 133 with 32MB RAM):

KDE 1.0 - Useable but slow. Memory leaks, too.
Enlightenment - So slow it is unusable. That's if you can even figure
out how to install the darned thing.
KDE 1.1 - Marginally faster than KDE 1.0. Some things are quite a bit
faster while others remain the same or slightly better. Not noticing
memory leaks yet.

My home machine is a little better. It's a Cyrix MII 233MHz with 64MB
of SDRAM. KDE 1.1 is quite snappy on it.

I've found the biggest bloat of all has nothing to do with my desktop
environment - Netscape Communicator is a big bloated pig!

by **Chad Dal** » Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:00:00

Quote:> >>I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
> >with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
> >and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
> >same machine).

> Unfortunately, KDE _IS_ slow and memory-hungry.
> 1.1 is much better than 1.0 in terms of features and stability, but it is even
> more large and slow (e.g. at startup).

> To make it start faster, you may edit startkde script and remove sleeps from
> there. On _fast_ machines it will make it faster.
> To low memory usage a bit, remove unused modules (e.g. kwmsound - if you don't
> use sounds) from startkde.

I was afraid of that.
Personally, I didn't have stability problems with 1.0, I just thought it was slow.
I guess WindowMaker is it for me. It's fast and does everyhthing I need it to, and
it looks decent.

--
Chad Dale
E*TRADE Canada Inc.

vcard.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Moritz Moeller-Herrma** » Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:00:00

>> I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
>> with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
>> and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
>> same machine).

>> If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
>> apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
>> pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

>I've found the biggest bloat of all has nothing to do with my desktop
>environment - Netscape Communicator is a big bloated pig!

AMEN! kfm has become good enough for me!

--

Why do you pay BIG BUCKS for "micro" software with BIG BUGS?

by **Tony Smol** » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00

>> I was wondering if anyone know's whether KDE 1.1 is any better than 1.0
>> with rescpect to memory usage and speed. I run on a P200 with 64MB Ram,
>> and I found 1.0 to be dreadfully slow (slower than WinNT or Win98 on the
>> same machine).

>> If anyone can answer this, please do. I am interested in programming KDE
>> apps, but not if it's so damned slow. (E uses less memory and I use a
>> pretty graphic-heavy desktop).

I found KDE-1.1 to be quite acceptible on my PII-233 laptop. Graphics
performace is comprable to NT on the same system, except that kfm is slow
reading large directories.

My home machine (a K6-233) still has KDE 1.0 Beta-3 installed, I found that
KDE's performance seemed much slower in Beta-4 and 1.0. I haven't tried 1.1
on it yet, but it should be interesting.

Very Computer

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?

Is 1.1 faster than 1.0?