Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 9th Apr 2005 16:32 UTC
GTK+ The GPE project updated their web site with brand new screenshots of their X-based PDA interface. Elsewhere, GTK+ 2.6.5 was released with bug fixes.
Order by: Score:
v Heh....
by Anonymous on Sat 9th Apr 2005 17:17 UTC
speed and agility of a rattlesnake?
by foo on Sat 9th Apr 2005 17:25 UTC

Are you kidding? Gtk is nice I agree but it is not fast. This is a known problem that is being worked on hard by gtk/gnome developers.

So,
by Cam on Sat 9th Apr 2005 17:36 UTC

Whats going to be the next big thing in GTK? Does somebody have any knowledge or a link to the roadmap for GTK 3? GTK 2 appears to be mostly fixes and the like. Certainly performance improvement is on the map, but I'm wondering how its going to compete, or even if its interested in competing with QT4. I know the canvas is being converted to Cairo, which is exciting.

- Posted on 2005-04-09 17:25:36
Are you kidding? Gtk is nice I agree but it is not fast. This is a known problem that is being worked on hard by gtk/gnome developers.


Ever work with XFCE?

Gnome's problem is not X or GTK.

Gnome takes too much memory to behave fast. Gnome with less than 256MB is painful. It takes about 512MB of memory for the desktop to perform correctly.

XFCE is lightning fast. This is why gnome has the memory optimization bounties.


...
by helf on Sat 9th Apr 2005 18:36 UTC

I'm strongly reminded of the PalmOS interface.. ;) with the tabs and such.

Judging by the speed of GTK on Windows, I wouldn't put the blame exclusively on GNOME. Anyway, the problem isn't that GTK is slow, but that it feels slow, especially with redraws. That said, I believe the themes for GTK look better than the other toolkits, including OS X. YMMV, of course.

Re: speed and agility of a rattlesnake?
by David on Sat 9th Apr 2005 21:04 UTC

This is why gnome has the memory optimization bounties.

Speed is about an awful lot more than just cutting memory usage. It's about optimising code, sensible structure and architecture and making sure that if your software does consume more memory than most, making sure it is actually saving memory in terms of the overall functionality it provides.

Re: So,
by benn on Sat 9th Apr 2005 21:10 UTC

What is coming in GTK 3? I hear that a complete rewrite is on the way, with incredible speed increases.

I hear. (Don't know the URL)

Which one
by dr d on Sat 9th Apr 2005 23:17 UTC

I had a zaurus 5500 until it crapped out. Great machine. What is the preferred hardware for gpe these days? Anyone using this now with hardware that I can go out and pick up (e.g., not some 2002 ipaq model)?

GPE 2.6 on OZ
by Victor Hooi on Sun 10th Apr 2005 00:05 UTC

Hi,

GPE 2.6 looks good, and hopefully they've got the memory consumption issues down (matchbox 0.9 was meant to fix it - waiting for and OZ release with this one (there's a pre-release - i've already flashed my Z-5500 with it - it's ok, but definitely not very polished),

bye,
Victor

gtk3
by John Nilsson on Sun 10th Apr 2005 00:06 UTC

from: http://www.gtk.org/plan/meetings/20040927.txt
<owen> federico: There are no plans for a 3.0

Not quite true, but near:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=gtk%2B&target_mil...

I think, http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero is much more interesting

GTK on Windows?
by aent on Sun 10th Apr 2005 00:22 UTC

"Judging by the speed of GTK on Windows, I wouldn't put the blame exclusively on GNOME. Anyway, the problem isn't that GTK is slow, but that it feels slow, especially with redraws. That said, I believe the themes for GTK look better than the other toolkits, including OS X. YMMV, of course."

You, sir, are testing the speed by running it in an emulated environment? Uh, yeah. Windows API is slow because wine is slow then.

@aent
by John Nilsson on Sun 10th Apr 2005 00:27 UTC

Where did you get this wine thing from?

If you didn't know, there is such a thing as Win32 edition of gtk+


By David (IP: ---.freedom2surf.net) - Posted on 2005-04-09 21:04:50

Speed is about an awful lot more than just cutting memory usage. It's about optimising code, sensible structure and architecture and making sure that if your software does consume more memory than most, making sure it is actually saving memory in terms of the overall functionality it provides.


Call me just a silly end user but when my laptop had 128MB it was nearly unusable running gnome but XFCE that uses gtk and X.org ran very quick.

Now, on my ancient old-*ss Sparc Ultra 5 with 256MB I was amazed that the response was actually better and gnome felt smoother and well snappier.

Yes, it is all subjective.

However, when I upgraded the same laptop to 512MB of memory I seriously will say that gnome was as fast or nearly as fast as XP on the same box. Yes, the very same box.

Am I saying that gtk and X.org could not stand speed increases especially when X.org uses compositing or the fact both X.org and gtk share the blame on the slow redraw issues people seem to focus comments on.

Still try out XFCE. You will what I mean. Gtk and X.org is only a very small part of the speed issue with gnome.

There is no denying the fact that gnome needs a ton of memory to run in a speedy fashion, period.

Yes and this is from a gnome fan running Ubuntu and using it everyday for both work and home not some tinkering critic who hops distros and secretly desires a linux that acts exactly like Windows or some other OS.

Development
by Kaiwai on Sun 10th Apr 2005 02:47 UTC

I've been following GTK development for a while; its good to see that they're pushing more things into GTK, eventually what it should mean is a nice clean build process for GNOME - similar to that of KDE - download the toolkit source, and build everything ontop of that (compared to the current situation).

As for the speed, from what I have read on the progress of 2.8, this is being addressed via Cairo integration, which should make things rather interesting - with that being said, it would be nice to know what is happening with XCB which apparently being pushed as a replacement for the current xlib. Can anyone here give a heads up on the situation?

Re: GTK on Windows?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Apr 2005 04:09 UTC

Gtk+ on Win32 isn't "emulated." It has its own gdk backend. Now, whether it's slow with that backend or not does not necessarily mean anything about the x11 backend, but it also has nothing to do with emulation.

XFCE
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Apr 2005 04:14 UTC

All of this mention of XFCE is confusing. There are virtually no programs in the XFCE environment, so what exactly are you comparing it against when you're comparing with "gnome?" I don't mean that as a slight against XFCE since I make use of it myself, but it doesn't really consist of much.

RE: XFCE
by Zenex on Sun 10th Apr 2005 06:11 UTC

"There are virtually no programs in the XFCE environment"

What are you talking about? I use XFCE, and it's a complete desktop environment, complete with a panel, taskbar, virtual desktops, window manager, preferences app, and a good file manager (even has smb support). The misconception that XFCE has no programs seems to come from it's lack of desktop icons. While some people like this, I actually run XFCE at work with nautilus drawing the desktop. Interestingly, the only part of the whole thing I find slow is the annoying lag when I haven't used Nautilus for a while and I click on a desktop icon.

v Oh yeah!
by Richard Stellingwerff on Sun 10th Apr 2005 07:23 UTC
RE: XFCE
by Morty on Sun 10th Apr 2005 12:22 UTC

>"There are virtually no programs in the XFCE environment"

>it's a complete desktop environment, complete with a >panel, taskbar, virtual desktops, window manager, >preferences app, and a good file manager
Exactly, you makes his popint. Those are not apps, merely tools and a part are a of the environment. They give you the ability to start applications, change your desktop preferences and manage your files, but not to do any "work". Where are the "real" applications for XFCE, the tools allowing you to work on the desktop. Applications like CD burners, mail clients, newsreaders, browsers, wordprocessors, image programs etc.

Re: XFCE
by Johnathan Bailes on Sun 10th Apr 2005 13:28 UTC


By Anonymous (IP: ---.dialup.mindspring.com) - Posted on 2005-04-10 04:14:19
All of this mention of XFCE is confusing. There are virtually no programs in the XFCE environment, .... I don't mean that as a slight against XFCE since I make use of it myself, but it doesn't really consist of much.


Well, I can browse my samba network a hell of a lot easier with XFCE's File Manager.

Let's see I have more control over the window frames and controls for the Window Manager.

I actually get more preferences than the stripped down and sleek gnome. (I actually don't mind this.)

I get a functional xdg complaint menu editor.

I get to use any and every app for the gtk2/gnome environment.

Oh yeah, I say this and I still prefer gnome. I just want it optimized for speed. I don't want all that dancing icons cutsey crap Havoc Pennington talked about after some convention when the enlightenment Guy Rasterman tripped and said that his stuff already did this.

I want speed first and then you can add the cute crap. My point from the start is that X+gtk2 does not have to be slow. XFCE is a great example of this. That was all I was saying.



none
by JoeToe on Sun 10th Apr 2005 13:44 UTC

baseing the 'speed' of GTK by using GTK is a VERY poor basis! plain and simple!
i much prefer GTK apps! when i click a icon, i want the application ready to go, click and boom - ready to go! gtk provides this, QT does not...

dont install kde or gnome and try both.... click on sylpheed, gedit, etc... now click on similar QT apps - and wait.... ;)
nuff said!

none
by JoeToe on Sun 10th Apr 2005 13:46 UTC

replace the second GTK with the word GNOME....

Re: none
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Apr 2005 15:44 UTC

click on sylpheed, gedit, etc... now click on similar QT apps - and wait.... ;)

This was true pre-kde3.4. Qt/KDE apps started a bit slower than gtk apps, but were faster once loaded, expecially on drawing on the screen. Now this is not true anymore, with the -fvisibility=hidden patch in gcc 3.4/4.0 and kde 3.4, apps loading times have improved radically. Try it, you'll be pleasantly surprised. When I installed kde 3.4 it was like a cpu upgrade.

Matchbox anyone ?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Apr 2005 17:10 UTC

How about http://projects.o-hand.com/matchbox/ Matchbox for PDA ?

Matchbox anyone ?
by Koen on Sun 10th Apr 2005 19:46 UTC

Click on "Usage Scenarios" on the link that you gave:

Matchbox grew out of a need for an improved workable interface for X on the Ipaq as part of the handhelds.org project. Many, if not all, existing window managers were designed for desktop use and proved inappropriate for the various limitations of a handheld.

Matchbox is now used as a component in various handheld projects on numerous handheld Linux enabled platforms. These include; GPE, A GTK2 based, mini GNOME like enviroment for PDA's and Pixil, A recently GPL'd FLTK enviroment.

Handheld distributions other than Familiar also now include matchbox, these include OpenEmbedded and PdaXRom.



Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee
by C on Mon 11th Apr 2005 01:18 UTC

Bah, all the Linuxes are compatible with the iPaq, but no love for the Axims. I'd have followed the typical PocketPC crowd and bought an iPaq, that was my first instinct, but the 620mhz/wifi/bt X30 was too low-priced to pass up.

Progress (painful as it may be to wait) is being made on a port anyways, and the work on the window managers is impressive. I'm just being whiny.

Keep up the good work =)

What is the point?
by Matthew on Mon 11th Apr 2005 04:29 UTC

There is limited support for GPE's host operating system anyway. Its nothing more than an excersize.