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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Kpresenter hogs memory
From:       "Robert Knight" <robertknight () gmail ! com>
Date:       2006-11-19 23:53:07
Message-ID: 13ed09c00611191553u18ec0575r92d780ab4c3514d3 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> I was thinking
> to use KDE but coming across this inefficient usage of memory suggests
> me of not using it at all.

Similarly, Windows XP requires more resources than Windows 95 for the
obvious reason that it has a lot more functionality and it looks
nicer.  Incidentally Windows XP doesn't work very well with 64MB or
RAM either, and it also does a lot less than a KDE desktop.

This doesn't mean that KDE is inefficient, in fact if you read the
article Boudewijn mentioned you can see that KDE scales quite well
when you have a lot of applications running in a realistic desktop
setting - at the penalty of having a higher minimum requirement that
Xfce or other "lightweight" alternatives.

What matters ultimately is "how well will KDE run on my system?".  If
you have a computer which was built sometime in the last 5 years then
it should run KDE without issues.

On 17/11/06, Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org> wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 12:49, Subhashis Roy wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > After going through 'First look: KOffice 1.5, part 1: The major
> > applications' in http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/01/1550241, I
> > was trying with Kpresenter-1.5 Beta 1 on Debian Sarge. However, I was
> > astonished to find that an Openoffice '.odp' presentation file of 5 MB
> > in size takes about 481 MB of 'non-swapped physical memory' (RES in
> > 'top') after loading it. Since this was a Beta release, I downloaded the
> > KDE Live CD with Kpresenter-1.6 and ran it using Qemu with an allocated
> > memory of 384 MB through 'kqemu'. I was surprised to find that it took
> > 280 MB of memory (RES in 'top') in trying to open that file. Then a
> > message something like ..no memory left was shown on that screen and no
> > response.  On the other hand, in opening that 5 MB '.odp' file,
> > 'openoffice-2.0.3' took 64 MB of memory.
>
> Yes, we know that the way we currently load documents is not memory
> efficient.
> As Ariya has said, we're (or rather, he is) working on it. And while there
> are definitely other places where memory usage could be more efficient, top
> is the wrong tool to measure. Don't use top top measure memory usage under
> linux. It is useless.
>
> > I also created a small presentation with Kpresentation. I found that
> > when the document size is ~100 KB, it taken only about ~40 MB, but once
> > I included an 1 MB 'jpg' image, it started taking >65 MB. It appears
> > that there is something very badly implemented in handling memory with
> > Kpresenter.
>
> How big is your jpg image once converted to bmp? When I take a sample 1.3 mb
> jpeg image and convert it to bmp (which is as close as possible to the
> necessary in-memory representation of images, that is, just the pixels), it
> grows to 29 MB. Now, if that image is stored inside the document it'll make
> memory usage grow with 29 mb. Which is the difference you mention.
> >
> > I was also surprised to find that the KDE Live CD takes about 250 MB of
> > total memory when just a 'Konsole' is started after booting with Qemu.
> > Whereas, I can run Debian Sarge with 'fvwm95' as Window manager and a
> > few Xterms comfortably with just using 64 MB of RAM.
>
> Yeah, I remember those days, too. fvwm, couple of xterms... Had to have
> xclock! It all fitted in 8 mb of memory, but I couldn't run Netscape for
> webbrowsing. Of course, there is rather a lot that that setup didn't do,
> like
> webbrowsing, image editing, wordprocessing, chatting, dvd burning, truetype
> font rendering, postscript font rendering and more. Here's a good article
> for
> you to read on the topic: http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/.
>
> > Linux was designed in a way which was mostly non-GUI based and makes
> > efficient usage of memory. However, it appears to me with a GUI based
> > approach (I donot see anyrhing wrong in using this approach efficiently)
> > of KDE, they are taking the Linux to the other side of inefficient usage
> > of memory. I do like Linux and use it fully for my academic work as a
> > scientist from 1996 with the then Slackware distribution. I was thinking
> > to use KDE but coming across this inefficient usage of memory suggests
> > me of not using it at all.
>
> Linux, like all Unix systems have always been comparatively memory-hungry:
> it's only because all the stuff you could do with Windows 95 wasn't possible
> with Linux/X11 in 1995 that Linux got a reputation for frugality with
> systems
> resources.
>
> --
> Boudewijn Rempt
> http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
>
>
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]