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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: kde, xfree & RAM
From:       Damien Uern <morpheus_2606 () internode ! on ! net>
Date:       2004-06-10 12:35:48
Message-ID: 200406102154.02061.morpheus_2606 () internode ! on ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:58 am, Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 19:11, Jean-Philippe Schneider wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In seeing table in ksysguard, i was stomached... For example i saw that
> > kopete takes 40Mo of physical mem and 60 of virtual...
> > Is that normal??? Ithink it is a little bit heavy!
> > If someone could explain me ;)
>
> It's a common misperception, because of the way memory reporting works
> under Linux.
>
> The physical memory and virtual memory reports include not only Kopete, but
> any shared libraries it may be using.  This includes glibc, Internet
> support, and KDE too, of course. ;-)
>
> Don't worry, though.  Most of that memory is shared by Linux between
> programs. So if you started up Kopete again, it doesn't double the memory
> use.
>
> If you'd like to see how much memory there is left, there should be a
> module for that in ksysguard, or you can just use the free command from the
> shell.
>
> Regards,
>  - Michael Pyne
>

Here's a relevant article posted today at osnews.com

" The Fast-Food Syndrome: The Linux Platform is Getting Fat"

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324


How could KDE be made to have a "light weight" configuration? Sure you can 
turn various GUI effects off, but what else? I've got a PR233 with 96MB of 
RAM (as a spare, not my main computer), and it runs ICEWM fine. But I'm not 
sure about KDE (I haven't tried it since I upgraded the RAM). 

Even on my 1.4GHz Athlon with 512MB RAM and Konqueror preloaded, the launch 
times of various things and the login time for KDE is pretty slow. Not *that* 
much slower than win2000, but noticeable (especially drawing speed, but I 
suspect that is XFree86's fault).

What speeds are the machines KDE devs are running? Do the distributors slow 
the desktop down with sub-optimal configurations? If so, could we create a 
KDE "reference distribution" that shows off how fast and tightly integrated 
KDE can be? Can we re-use konqueror more rather than creating new 
applications? (e.g. menu editor, control centre).  Would that provide memory 
gains?.

Cheers,

Damien

P.S: I love KDE; I wouldn't have spent a week getting it to compile on Solaris 
if I didn't :)

- -- 
"This is Vergon 6." -Professor 
 "Buh." -Amy 
 It's a sunny little doomed planet, inhabited by a number of frisky little
doomed animals." -Professor 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAyFLXXHT3QsqXjYQRAnAiAJ9xotDvDc3N5y8NhmZ+7jlmQF8w/wCcCliH
mi1QuvBoM1ivqahOKuIngg8=
=Y0OF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

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