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

List:       kde-linux
Subject:    RE: [kde-linux] KDE's performance
From:       "Charles Marcus" <CharlesM () Media-Brokers ! com>
Date:       2002-01-28 15:16:21
[Download RAW message or body]

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