How Slow is KDE?

[Kurt Wall]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 08:55:27AM -0500, Tim Wunder took 71 lines to write:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 1:33 am, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
> > On 01/21/2006 10:30 PM, Kurt Wall wrote:
> > > As seen on alt.os.linux.slackware:
> > >
> > > "KDE is still as slow as a frozen turd sliding down a horizontal
> > > plane."
> > >
> > > That'd be pretty darn slow.
> >
> > And that's on a good day.
> 
> Especially if you don't look for evidence otherwise:
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1664

Which shows that start time is roughly equivalent between KDE and
XFCE4.

> http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/10/konsole-vs-xterm-or-proof-that-kde-is.html

Which only says that konsole eats less memory than xterm.

> Of course that's just evidence from folks who hack on and use KDE, so their 
> word, I'm sure, is unreliable. Better to take the word of some Slack-head who 
> doesn't actually use KDE, I guess.
> ;)

Au contraire, Pierre. I use KDE at work. Sure, KDE hackers have a bias. 
I have a bias. KDE is convenient and integrated. I don't need the
integration.

3.4 is a huge improvement over 2.x and, duh, 1.x. I find it useable at
this point, but I don't know if that's because I have 1.5G of RAM and
a fast Opteron CPU or because 3.4 is leaner than the bloated pig it
used to be.

> KDE works for me and has apps I like (kontact, konqueror, amarok, kopete, 
> konversation). To each his own. (damn minimalists...)

Whatever rows yer boat.

Kurt
-- 
This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.