Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 01:48 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Permalink for comment 529322
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 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-23
Because every time I use the obsolete version, I notice how beautiful, configurable, usable, and ridiculously fast it is compared to version 4.
KDE 4 is acceptable if you have a powerful enough computer. It works pretty well on a Core 2 Duo machine with a fast SATA drive and 4 GB of RAM. But
- It doesn't offer a whole lot more functionality than KDE 3, in fact it offers less in some ways
- Login times are mad slow on netbooks
- Redraw delays and issues with Qt4 make it completely unusable on really low-end machines
BTW I'll admit I like the idea of Plasma in principle; unifying the panel and desktop applets into one application seems smart. But IMO it's less than satisfactory in practice, primarily because it's big and slow and cumbersome. I think Razor-Qt does a better job with that idea (see: 2 second start time for Razor-Qt vs. 30 second start time for KDE/Plasma),