How Slow is KDE?

[Kurt Wall]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 08:38:44AM -0700, Collins Richey took 60 lines to write:
> 
> Damn trolls.

[insert Bronx cheer here]

> I'm one of the damn minimalists, but I can't stomach that type of
> malarkey. I've mostly used xfce or icewm over the years because I

It was a joke, people. Geez.

> don't always need the bells and whistles of a full blown  desktop
> system. Yes, KDE or Gnome is painfully slow on ancient hardware, but
> on modern PCs of the >= 2Ghz >= 512Mg variety, KDE works quite well
> and provides the environment that many/most people expect from a
> desktop workstation. And it's a lot better than the early days, as is
> almost everything in Linux land.

I suppose the true test would be to run the various version of KDE on
the same hardware. If 3.5 is slower on the same hardware than 2.x, then
KDE is still a bloated pig. In the interests of fairness, XFCE is bigger 
and slower than it used to be, too.

> Now, if you really want to troll, just visualize where we might have
> been by now if the GNU heads and Debianites had not branded KDE as
> spawn of the devil and set out in their parallel universe to produce
> in (mostly) a wasted effort a separate but not necessarily equal
> competing product. Just think what a polished product KDE might have
> been if the same effort had not gone into reinventing the wheel.

/me nods. 
I'm not sure what GNOME has bought us except a bunch of UI nazis and
some darned harned to use dialogs. Oh, I suppose it's demonstrated how
juvenile even the enlightened can be, but I didn't need that
demonstration.

> FWIW, I've been running KDE 3.5 for a couple of months now just to see
> what others are experiencing. Sure it takes 15-20 seconds longer to
> initialize, and I get occasional swap usage, but other than that it's
> a damn good product.
> 
> QWICHURBELLYACHIN!

Kurt
-- 
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
		-- Samuel Goldwyn