Linked by suka on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:19 UTC
Permalink for comment 486963
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 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
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
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-06-30
That's not FUD - we just have different experiences or expectations.
I'm using a more powerful machine than any of these mentioned and while the performance is satisfactory the the window manager, menu etc. do not run as smoothly as in Gnome2 with Compiz. Yet KDE manages to drain the battery and spin the fan faster than any other desktop.
That would be fine if lower performance was compensated with a better user experience but for variety of reasons I feel KDE is worse in this regard than both Gnome2 and XFCE. KDE definitely has potential, I think it is just lacking a person or a company that would do to it what Ubuntu did to Gnome2.