Along these lines, I would be *really* interested in a kinda =
'cheat-sheet' list of all of the processes that KDE runs with the =
default installation, and what each does, and most importantly, which =
ones I can turn off and how.  Also any options that don't actually run a =
separate process, but still take up resources.

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kde-linux-admin@mail.kde.org
> [mailto:kde-linux-admin@mail.kde.org]On Behalf Of Frans Englich
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:42 PM
> To: kde-linux@mail.kde.org
> Subject: [kde-linux] KDE's performance
>=20
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> Alot of people whine about KDE consuming of memory and CPU=20
> power. And it's not=20
> only the trolls at slashdot that claim that.
> This is some of the different opinions I've heard/read on this matter:
>  =20
> 1. KDE is fancy. It got alot of features and alot of=20
> eyecandy. Who've said=20
> that it doesn't cost performance? In any case, have you=20
> looked at Look and=20
> feel i Kcontrol? Alot of the CPU consuming features is=20
> optional, like applet=20
> animations.
>=20
> 2. Come on, it's not the 80' any longer! Memory is cheap,=20
> processor power is=20
> cheap - why don't use the power? The most computers meat=20
> KDE's demand today.=20
> Let's make something that actually use all the horsepower=20
> available. In other=20
> words, it's just foolish to think that anything like a=20
> Pentium 100mhz's would=20
> run a desktop enviroment as rich as KDE.
>=20
> 3. X is bloated.. It's X' fault.
>=20
> 4. "Have you tried KDE with objprelink? Ever done all the=20
> mumbo jumbo tweaks?=20
> KDE will fly if you do!"
>=20
>=20
> This is how I look at it:
>=20
> I agree to a certain extent on paragraph 2 but it's becoming=20
> a little bit=20
> extreme. I'm running KDE HEAD on an Thunderbird 750Mhz,=20
> 128mb, Geforce2 and=20
> the kernel/drivers optimized for my hardware but KDE is still=20
> sluggish. I=20
> know, it is alpha but KDE 2.2.2 wasn't much faster.
>=20
> 4 - Yeah, I've actually tried it. It's great. But it looks=20
> like the targeting=20
> audience isn't those who are able to apply all the tweaks. Does the=20
> distributions come with all the tweaks applied to KDE? Nope..
>=20
> 3 - In my opinion, X is quite alright. It got a huge set of=20
> features which=20
> takes years to develope and mature. Until any of the other=20
> projects like=20
> DirectFB got the same functionality and better performance=20
> I'll surrender.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I have absolutely no insight in KDE internals/framework nor=20
> how Qt and X work=20
> and can thus not make a decent comment. But I would *really*=20
> like to know the=20
> the explanation to KDE's consuming. I would also like to know the=20
> strategy/goal that the KDE team has set up; Is there any=20
> plans on optimizing=20
> KDE's performance? What's the policy? Is it considered an=20
> issue that KDE=20
> consumes much resources? Is there any realistic to do about it?
>=20
> Ofcourse, I'm not asking you to reply with an essay on this=20
> but if you=20
> redirected me to an article, IRC log, mailinglist thread or=20
> whatever I would=20
> gladly accept it. And if you got any comments on this letter they're=20
> appreciated too.
>=20
> keep up the good work,
> Frans
>=20
> frans.englich@telia.com
> =20
>=20
> =20
> ___________________________________________________
> This message is from the kde-linux mailing list.
> Account management:  http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-linux.
> Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
> More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.


___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde-linux mailing list.
Account management:  http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-linux.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.