Linked by suka on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:19 UTC
Permalink for comment 486933
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
This is all mere unsupported allegation. I run KDE4 on a recent but low-end, under-powered, low-RAM netbook, and it runs just fine. I have encountered no hardware that used to run KDE3 well that cannot now run KDE4 just as well.
Indeed there may well be old hardware out there with no GPU, a slow CPU and a lack of RAM ... but such hardware will not run ANY recent full-featured OS well. If you have such hardware you have no hope of running KDE4, GNOME, Windows 7, Mac OSX Lion or whatever on it, something like Puppy Linux is probably your only choice.
My question for you is this: why is an observation that there happen to be some older machines still out there which will not run KDE4, GNOME, XFCE, Windows 7 or Mac OSX well in any way a valid criticism of KDE4 in particular?
Hmmmm?