On February 20, 2004 12:38 pm, Alexander H.M. Ruoff wrote:
> I have to agree, I use a PIII 450 with 128 MB and KDE is compared to W2K
> really snappy and extremely stable. Same experience with my Laptop, a

The common claim of everyone who has said "KDE is faster than Win2k on [my] 
machine" is that they are all (correct me if I'm wrong) using less than 256 
meg of RAM. Maybe 128 meg or less.

As I may have mentioned, when I had only 128 meg of RAM, Win2k was a MASSIVE 
PIG. It thrashed and ground the hard drive constantly. I'm not sure how KDE 
would have compared, but it's entirely possible it would have been faster.

HOWEVER, I am not referring in any way, on either system, to hard drive access 
slowing things down. Since I have upgraded my system to 384 meg of RAM, Win2k 
is lightning fast -- there is not even a second of swapping to slow things 
down. The same applies to KDE (no swapping to slow things down).

But, with the 384 meg, simple, PROCESSOR-BASED (?) tasks like opening/drawing 
windows takes a noticeable delay on KDE while there is no delay on Win2k. 
This is NOT a function of how many icons are in a folder or anything like 
that. Things that do not require significant hard drive reading just open 
instanteously on Win2k for me and take 2 - 4 seconds to do so in KDE.

-- 
 Trevor Smith    |    trevor@haligonian.com 
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management:  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.