[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Why is KDE so _slow_?
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2002-11-17 7:36:32
[Download RAW message or body]

Maks Orlovich wrote:
> Look, man, I've spent weeks painfully analyzing things. I don't need any
> expert commentary from people who haven't. Is this a bit arrogant? 

Yes, it comes of as very arrogant.

You are in effect saying that you know all about this so you don't need 
anyone else's input.  Don't you want user's input?  And this one knows 
enough that he can give you good answers if you ask questions.

<SNIP>
> 
> I am not; but I am pointing out that:
> a) You can't measure anything with the debug output on 

I know that and I am NOT the one providing figures or complaining that 
it is slow.  I know that the debug code is slow, but I have to run it 
otherwise I can't come up with any useful information about bugs I find 
or bugs I confirm.

> b) I know what Konqueror does on startup, and that it's not something that
> can be generally delayed or avoided. 

Well, my original point was the same.  That Konqueror takes a little 
time to start because a lot of things have to happen before it starts.

> c) The time spent is generally not proportional to the amount of debug
> output, particularly since the KConfig area settings might be sent rather
> bizarrely. 
> 
That is useful information.
> 
> 
>>Then why don't you understand the difference between reporting the stuff
>>and doing the stuff?
> 
> 
> I do, but I invite you to prevent it from doing the stuff w/o breaking
> anything.
> 
<SNIP>

> No, I am saying that they are done because they have to be done, so I don't
> see your point at all. There is also very little relation between the
> amount of debug output and the time spent in the code. In fact, only about
> 2 of the lines of the whole output above account for a significant portion
> of the startup time. Heck, a whole lot of work done is not even in any part
> of KDE. 

While my gut reaction continues to be: Does it really have to do ALL of 
that stuff, I presume that it does.  The unfortunate truth is that it is 
these startup delays that are responsible for KDE's reputation for being 
slow.

My only suggestion, which is somewhere else in this thread, is that it 
is the delayed reaction that people perceive as slowness.  If the 
Konqueror frame, the menu bar, blank tool bars and a blank window could 
come up immediately and then the other stuff filled in, people would 
perceive it as being faster even if it was actually a little slower.

The same is true of opening something in a new tab.  There is absolutely 
no feedback at all except that if you used the right click menu, it 
disappears.  With Mozilla, the new tab comes up IMMEDIATELY with 
"Loading" in it.  Then after a while it gets a name, and then the page 
loads.  I don't think that it is faster, but it appears to be faster.

And also when you open a terminal from Konqueror: Tools => Open 
Terminal.  There is NO feedback and it appears to take a long time.

--
JRT

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]