From kde Tue Feb 24 21:15:13 2004 From: "Luke Chatburn" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:15:13 +0000 To: kde Subject: Re: [kde] how to make KDE faster? Message-Id: <001a01c3fb1b$4b4ecc90$6601a8c0 () Furies> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde&m=107765730223257 When it comes to CPU-bound tasks, the 2.6 kernel has done a lot to improve responsiveness for users. If you haven't already tried it, I heartily recommend it, or a distro such as Mandrake 9.2, which has a lot of backported patches and specialised tweaks. The difference I found between Mandrake 9.1 and 9.2 was very marked in terms of responsiveness on the same machine, and the 2.6 kernel made it even faster. KDE 3.2 also improves speed in a number of areas, so you might want to try that too. If you have a decent video card, from nVidia or ATi, then it is useful to install their drivers, too. This will boost graphical activities quite a bit, especially redrawing when activating menus and moving windows. I personally recommend the Mandrake 10 betas and RCs. They are really going rather well, and you will see other distros picking up 2.6+KDE 3.2 shortly as well, improving those CPU-bound activities. -Luke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Smith" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [kde] how to make KDE faster? > 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. > ___________________________________________________ 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.