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

List:       redhat-list
Subject:    Re: KDE Performance
From:       "Technoslick" <technoslick () adelphia ! net>
Date:       2003-05-17 11:08:08
[Download RAW message or body]

From: "Tom Smith" <tom@openadventures.org>
> Fred Whipple wrote:
> 
> > > I'm running RedHat 9.0 with the included version of KDE on a P-II 300
> > > with 190 MB of RAM.
> > > 
> > > I haven't been able to improve KDE's performance compared to 
> > > other distros.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Remember, KDE is a Desktop Environment, not a Linux Distribution.  That
> > aside ;-)
> > 
> Despite not being a Linux distro, FreeBSD runs KDE 3.x _much_ faster 
> than the RedHat--thus I thought that RedHat's "eye candy" (Blucurve, 
> that is) may be causing the performance problems.

It's more than just the adoption of BlueCurve that causes most of the woes in running \
KDE in RH8/9. If you look at the archives in either/both RH-Install and User, you \
will find this brought out in the discussion over how "broken" KDE was under RH 8. \
Apparently, this was purposely done to malign the GUI to be pro-Gnome and keep the \
"look and feel" to RH's desire. Like Windows, you can't decide who's GUI to use, just \
the colors and some style changes from RH's preset norm. When I upgraded from RH 8 to \
version 9, I had hoped to see this change. I don't see it, if it exists. KDE is still \
just as kludge in 9 as it was in 8, IMHO.

> 
> > > For my system, simply turning it on and logging into KDE comsumes over
> > > 160 MB of RAM--and that's with the minimal number of services running 
> > > (no Apache, MySQL, etc.).
> > > 
> > > Can anyone offer suggestions for improving its performance?

Sure. Don't use it. :-) Unless you are willing to break everything and install a \
generic copy of KDE...I think Stephen Kuhn was the one to incite that kind of riot. \
Beyond my abilities right now, and I have no interest in trying. Under RH 9, I leave \
the look as it is and try to make the rest of it productive.

> > 
> > Unfortunately NO, but I can offer sympothy.  I had been running KDE for
> > years and it's just gotten slower and slower and bigger and bigger.  It's
> > far, far more advanced IMHO than the other desktop environments, but I
> > actually stopped running it because of its huge resource requirements and
> > extremely slow performance relative to, say, (gulp) Windows on the same
> > hardware.  Ultimately I ended-up running Gnome for no other reason than it's
> > a complete desktop environment with a reasonably snappy interface.  I run
> > Gnome primarily on a P-II 400MHz notebook with 256MB of RAM.
> > 
> I hate to do this to you again but on FreeBSD booting the system _and_ 
> loading KDE consumes about 90 MBs of RAM--compared to RedHat's 160+ MBs.
> 
> I know this may be comparing apples and oranges but I think it's still a 
> valid point. KDE is KDE is KDE, as the saying goes. The FreeBSD distro 
> doesn't include all of Redhat's eye candy. It simply provides KDE as the 
> community distributes it.

Which is why it works as expected in FreeBSD and Mandrake. RH has used a blunt knife \
on this cut-up job...

T


-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list


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