Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Aug 2009 00:12 UTC, submitted by rexstuff
Permalink for comment 377333
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-19
Ergo, KDE4 itself is not slow. If KDE4 itself was slow, it would be slow everywhere.
It's entirely possible for some quirk of a system to allow software that poorly suits the general case to out-perform software that is well-written for the general case. The fact that KDE4 may have, at some point, in time, for some very specific configuration, out-performed all other DE's (however you'd measure that), does not mean that, in general, KDE4 is never the performance problem.
I'm also assuming that "every other DE" means, say, XFCE, Gnome, maybe XP and Vista, maybe even OS X. If you're trying to get me to believe that KDE4 out-performed BlackBox (again, however you measure it) on the same hardware, well, I'll call BS on that particular claim.