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

List:       kde-linux
Subject:    Re: [kde-linux] Re: Has The performance been forgotten?
From:       Trevor Smith <trevor () haligonian ! com>
Date:       2004-10-09 15:01:13
Message-ID: 200410091201.13677.trevor () haligonian ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On October 9, 2004 9:31 am, andrew kar wrote:

> How about trying a distro that concentrates on optimising and compiling
> efficiently. For instance although Mandrake and Redhat are the same base
> there is a huge difference in speed.

I'm beginning to think about switching to another distro like Mandrake. If I 
did, and stopped using FC, how does that affect my ability to use RPMs? (I've 
never understood if these binaries are really distro-specific or not.) And 
yum? Because I've become very dependent on yum (I've rarely ever been able to 
get any source to actually compile).

> How about using an up to date Linux with a 2.6 kernel which has had many
> speed improvements recently and an up to date kde and qt which has vastly
> increased its speed due to optimisations since kde3.1.

I have observed the opposite. I went from a PIII 500 to an Athlon XP-M 2800+ 
laptop (brand new) and kept FC1 on both. The new hardware was MUCH faster (as 
expected). But then I went from FC1 -> FC2 and things slowed down a LOT. I 
later went to 2.6 kernel and things are not improved. I have moved to KDE 
3.3.0.xxxx and still, things do not run as quickly on the same hardware as 
FC1/KDE 3.1 did. (I'm praying some of the rumours I've heard about FC3 
"fixing" some of the slowdowns of FC2 are true.)

> Use a limited set 
> of fonts because the hundreds of unnecessay fonts with most distros cause a
> large delay.

Now that is a tip I'd like to try. Any easy/quick way to remove fonts from a 
KDE system? Or directly from some layer below KDE?

> Are we talking about REAL program load times or do we cheat and have most
> of the app preloaded like windows does with Explorer, Internet Explorer and
> MS Office? 

Hell, I'd love to "cheat" the way MS does and have some stuff preloaded. The 
thing is, WinXP Home boots on my system in 20%-30% less time than FC2 does 
*and* logs in at least that as fast as either KDE or GNome do (I've turned 
off everything I can in linux) and it still has had time to preload all that 
stuff? Great! I'd like that system in Linux then. :-)

> You have settings to preload your konqueror browser and file 
> manager windows and they too will come up instantaneously. If you use your

This is not observed here. I have tried every possible setting and had KDE set 
to preload an instance of Konq for a year and it is not remotely 
instantaneous. With my very reasonable hardware, it takes 1.something seconds 
to open Konq, even though it's "preloaded". I have tweaked hdparm, and I have 
lots of hardware (Athlon XP-M 2800+, 512 meg RAM).

> can be vastly different in speeds. RH FC2 and Mandrake 10 should be about
> the same yet the RH implementation of KDE is painfully slow compared to
> Mdk10. This could be deliberate (RH is pro-Gnome) but I think it is just
> badly configured.

Really? What does this mean? Does it mean only the KDE that comes with the 
distro is faster? Or if I run Mandrake and then yum update (or whatever 
equivalent) will KDE always remain installed/updated in a way that will be 
faster than I'm experiencing right now with FC2?

I will leave FC for a quicker KDE because it is far superior to Gnome, IMO, in 
terms of features, looks and usability.

-- 
Trevor Smith // trevor@haligonian.com
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde-linux mailing list.
Account management:  https://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]