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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: low performance of kio
From:       Bill Soudan <wes0472 () rit ! edu>
Date:       2000-04-21 17:33:32
[Download RAW message or body]


On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, David Faure wrote:

> Do you realize that konqueror is actually a lot FASTER than kfm ?

I've noticed the general feel of konqueror is *much* faster, definitely,
and I've also noticed a significant improvement in the ftp ioslave.
Unfortunately, the only time I use kfm is when I'm using the ftp ioslave
to access a remote site - I find kfm a little clunky for general use.
Though part of the reason is I still use the command line out of habit.
As far as performance working with local files, as in reading and copying,
I have no idea what the comparative performance is, because I haven't used
either enough to judge nor have I ran any myself benchmarks.

The fact that konqueror is faster than kfm is great then, but I'm not
necessarily trying to compare konqueror to kfm, it could be any other file
manager out there.  If, for example, user X uses mc to do file management,
they install KDE2, and they notice that konqueror takes (completely
arbitrary here) 5x as long to copy files around that's going to reflect
negatively on konqueror.  Or, someone normally uses Windows, they test out
linux & KDE2.  This person have a lot of large mp3s, and... "hmm, copying
these around is taking a lot longer than Windows.  Linux is slow!"

Again, all other issues aside, just trying to think of in terms of an
*average* user.

Bill

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