According to these blog posts from SUSE/Novell KDE developers that include bootcharts showing KDE startup, recent performance improvements in fontconfig and KDE/Qt have a noticeable effect on startup times. KDE can even match Xfce startup time (both 5 seconds on a 900MHz laptop) when some KDE features are turned off to match Xfce more closely in terms of functionality.
KDE does not start for 4-5 secs but for 7-8 seconds for sure on slackware linux 10.2 with kde 3.4.2 which is really the fastest going system I have ever used…
however, are this changes made, only work for SuSE Linux? I don’t really get what they did to start KDE faster…
Its interesting to note that the bootchart program (bootchart.sf.net) is essentially a project that came out a Fedora challenge to reduce boot up time. Nearly all of the distributions starting picking up the program and advertised it as a achievement while Fedora went on quitely doing its job as usual.
I still prefer gnome and I am a systems admin
That comment has what to do with the story?
Please stop trolling. We are talking about serious desktops and serious real life issues here.
It is interesting many articles comparing performance to XFCE4 lately. Here’s a good question to ask: Why not just install XFCE4 and use it instead of trying to duplicate it’s performance? On Fedora you open up a terminal, login as root, run ‘yum install xfce4’. Now you can use that performance boost without having to turn things off to *achieve* that performance boost. You can still use KDE or Gnome applications. Enable the Gnome services in XFCE4 if you want your Gnome applications to launch faster.
Why not just install XFCE4 and use it instead of trying to duplicate it’s performance?
Because:
– XFCE is not as powerful not as featureful not as nice as KDE is.
– XFCE doesn’t have many XFCE-only applications. If I have to start Gnome or KDE apps inside XFCE, I’ll lose the only benefit of running XFCE.
The real question is:
KDE feels already very fast; if those patches manages to make the startup time even faster, why should you bother running a slower and less featureful DE?
“KDE feels already very fast; if those patches manages to make the startup time even faster, why should you bother running a slower and less featureful DE?”
because at the beginning KDE was a a slower and less featureful DE, and if nobody used it, it would not become what it is currently.
Because:
– XFCE is not as powerful not as featureful not as nice as KDE is.
– XFCE doesn’t have many XFCE-only applications. If I have to start Gnome or KDE apps inside XFCE, I’ll lose the only benefit of running XFCE.
Yes, your’re right but this doesn’t apply to GTK apps if they come without Gnome baggage. On less powerful machines, Xfce is a cracker of a good DE in my experience. And so far it has proved very stable.
XFCE is written using gtk. Gnome applications run Just fine in Xfce because they are written using the same toolkit (gtk). It is when you load kde or any qt application that makes you lose the benefit. Once you have to load kdelib ontop of glib and the gtk stuff, you’ve lost the benefit.
The other day I had to boot up a computer using Knoppix and I was very impressed on how much KDE has improved lately.
If they manage to produce a more easy-on-your-eyes icon theme and reduce on-screen clutter we have a winner.
Btw I haven’t checked Gnome lately, so no flames please!
Enable the Gnome services in XFCE4 if you want your Gnome applications to launch faster.
And that would make XFCE startup time to grow.
true by about two seconds. A truly horrible amount of time to wait. what was I thinking. scrap the whole comment.
if xfce becomes 2 secs slower, KDE will start 2 secs faster compared to xfce. why not run KDE, instead?
Simple answer again to an obvious problem. 40 seconds to load versus 10 makes 2 seconds trivial. Do your research before making obviously mistaken solutions.
I said a while back in terms of Gnome (not KDE) that they should make XFCE (since its designed to be small and fast and uses the same toolkit) a benchmark to their own performance.
In other words, Gnome should make it a goal to be as fast as XFCE of course they will never make this goal but being almost as quick as XFCE is admirable thing to grasp for and show a real improvement to the user.
Good job KDE folks.
“they will never make this goal but being almost as quick as XFCE is admirable thing to grasp for and show a real improvement to the user. ”
Never say say never.
The boot time isn’t about how much you have to load.
Load time is all about dependencies. Reducing load time
will require reordering of code, libraries and functionality.
This is good KDE is getting faster. One other poster mentioned if they could just clean up the on screen clutter. This is why Gnome users use Gnome. They don’t want the screen clutter and they don’t want to hunt around trying to turn off a gazillion toolbars on every application. The UI is still too loud and distracting to attract Gnome users. The speed is good though.
This is why Gnome users use Gnome. They don’t want the screen clutter and they don’t want to hunt around trying to turn off a gazillion toolbars on every application. The UI is still too loud and distracting to attract Gnome users.
Who cares if Gnome users are not attracted by KDE? Why would they look at the other side of the fence if they are happy with their environment? Different needs, different projects, different audiences.
Both camps are in competition, but not in favour of the annihilation of the other. The only ones making these claims just like to stir shit.
I Gnome just could add the neccesary context menus and toolbars me and kde users are accustomed to using, we might try out Gnome. I don’t want to hunt around for those options which are there by default on my favored OS. The UI is still too spartan and boring to attract KDE users.
Yeah.
“The UI is still too spartan and boring to attract KDE users. ”
thats because kde users much prefer holographic light effects and a firework display of dazzling colours to something that looks much more professional like gnome.
its the child in people that makes them prefer kde.
well said. if a KDE user had more money they would buy a Mac with OSX and enable all the desktop widgets to fill the screen with culttering eye-candy.
its the child in people that makes them prefer kde.
Really? Well as long as we’re perpetuating old and tired stereotypes, let’s turn it around and remember that children lack the experience to make judgements for themselves; need hand holding to learn even basic skills; look to their authority figures to tell them right from wrong; have limits and rules set to guide their behavior; are often convinced they know more than they really do; and let’s face it, they frequently throw wicked temper tantrums.
Sounds like your average Gnome zealot to me. Sort of the way Freud believed that we spend our adult lives regressing to the safety and security of our childhood, our inner child longing to be safe in our mom’s bosom and sucking on her teat. No doubt he would have appreciated the irony of Gnome’s popularity.
When you’re ready to take the training wheels off, think for yourself and take control of your own environment, you’re ready for the kde years.
There. How’s that for perpetuating stereotypes?
“When you’re ready to take the training wheels off, think for yourself and take control of your own environment, you’re ready for the kde years”
yes, and thats when things get really rough and tough. this stage will make people hardened to all the frustrations of the kde desktop crashing all the time, the tediously slow load up times, and the clutter of the interface.
hardly surprising why no corporates are giving kde even a moments glance.
are trolls…
If I have to start Gnome or KDE apps inside XFCE, I’ll lose the only benefit of running XFCE.
This statement is an assumption and not based on fact. For users with olders systems running XFCE4 with gnome services enabled still gives you a much smaller memory footprint than running KDE or Gnome. Your applications will lauch faster and switching between them will feel faster since the system won’t have to juggle memory around as much. If you miss Nautilus pull up a shell and run ‘nautilus’. If you want your gnome panel pull up a shell and type ‘gnome-panel’. Close your session in XFCE4 and it will remember what you are running and it will reload it just as you logged out just like KDE or Gnome.
I wish there was something like “KDE-Lite” i.e. KDE without all K-apps.
I prefer chosing my own applications, and most of them don’t start with “K.” And I don’t want to be bothered with removing dozens of applications that I don’t like.
Presently, I use IceWM. It’s okay, although it’s lacking in some areas.
I wish there was something like “KDE-Lite” i.e. KDE without all K-apps.
There is, and it’s called indeed KDE Light. It only comes with one distro (for now at least), PocketLinux, but it’s definitely worth to try it out IMHO. 🙂
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=pocket
And some screenshots (the last one is the most current version):
http://gnulinux.de/pocketlinux/images/Screenshot1.png
http://gnulinux.de/pocketlinux/images/Screenshot2.png
http://gnulinux.de/pocketlinux/images/Screenshot3.png
http://gnulinux.de/pocketlinux/images/Screenshot4.png
That’s more than just removing the KDE applications though, it looks as though there were some very noticable code changes as well.
I saw other screenshots of the very same which showed even more of what they cut out, it may be convenient for someone who wants very little functionality in their DE, but I wouldn’t use it because most of the features they cut out were very convenient features.
KDE lite looks great. Reminds of IceWM, a little.
Except, apparently, KDE lite allows you to put icons on the desktop.
Comparing KDE to XFCE is like the old Apples/Oranges adage. If you rewrote XFCE using the Qt toolkit….and then compared its startup time to KDE…that might have some comparative meaning.
XFCE is simply a speedy/responsive answer for some folks who dislike GNOME’s “bloat” and lagginess but love GTK…and don’t mind a few less features.
KDE has a bazillion features/options… more so than GNOME, and inarguably more so than XFCE. Maybe it’s worth it; maybe it’s not.
It really comes down to ones needs. Does KDE supply me with features that are personally relevant? Is the 2-second startup difference worth suffering? Will the world stop turning if I use this product?
Build a bridge and get over the nitpicking. Use what works for you, and stop shoving your personal preferences down everyone elses throat.
XFCE is simply a speedy/responsive answer for some folks who dislike GNOME’s “bloat” and lagginess but love GTK…and don’t mind a few less features.
Hmmm…I’ve gone through lots of DEs, finally landing on XFCE. But, can someone tell me, what are these missing features people’s talking about? With XFCE I’ve got more features than anytime before, given all plugins available for XFCE. Also, since everything is so lightweight and fast, you allow yourself to run more ‘unusable’ stuff like the weather-plugin than on a heavier DE.
KDE’s moving along very nice lately, though, but I can’t quite see what desktop-features I’m missing on XFCE.
What would you want with KDE without KDE apps? That’d be pretty useless. You do not have the power of KIO, nor do you benfit from the integration and responsiveness (after bootup on faster machines, compared to gnome/xfce) of the KDE desktop.
But if you really want a light kde desktop, you could also install kdelibs and kdebase and add the programs you like. With the proper distribution, you can get only those (KDE) apps you like, without getting the whole package (for example split up ebuilds/ports/rpm’s).
But it’s true that this all or nothing approach can be very disturbing. For example, if I want kmix or kpdf, I have to install kdemultimedia or kdegraphics, respectively. I’m not really short on HD space, so I do not really care (and more importantly, the kmenu editor just works, these days).
For example, if I want kmix or kpdf, I have to install kdemultimedia or kdegraphics
Dunno what distro you’re using, but in Debian and presumably debian derivatives, you can install every application separately. kdemultimedia and kdegraphics are just convenience packages that depend on all the others, but you dont have to install them.
For example, if I want kmix or kpdf, I have to install kdemultimedia or kdegraphics, respectively
Only if you are very unfortunate to work on a distribution without separate packages.
this line in kdmrc:
Preloader=/usr/kde/3.4/bin/preloadkde
i was make some research in google and there is nothing like a preloadkde program, there is a guide with a trick using find to make something like a preloader.
this is a test of cold startup performance, but a more focused preloader could have a better effect…
What about SimpleKDE?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/simplekde/
http://www.simplekde.org/
The latter, which is the project homepage is not working
I hope SimpleKDE does not just become KDE simplified in a way that the advanced options are disabled not to confuse the average user:
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/2005-September/001693.htm…
I remember SimpleKDE will be a part of the KDE desktop. But nothing is there about QT4 and SimpleKDE.
I believe it would be a great project to have a QT based lightweight GUI. The issue is not GTK vs. QT zealotry. We just need more choice among the lightweight but powerful GUIs. It should not just be a port of XFCE but something entirely new.
> What about SimpleKDE?
[…]
> I hope SimpleKDE does not just become KDE simplified
> in a way that the advanced options are disabled not
> to confuse the average user:
> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/2005-September/001693.htm…..
>
> I remember SimpleKDE will be a part of the KDE
> desktop. But nothing is there about QT4 and
> SimpleKDE.
Have you read Aaron J. Seigo’s reply to the posting behind that link? It states pretty clearly that the people who have created this “simpleKDE” did it by ripping out things without really knowing what they were doing and without thinking about compatibility with anything. They themselves call it a fork. IMHO there’s no chance at all that this will be somehow integrated into KDE proper. All simpleKDE can become is a maintenance nightmare but fortunately not for the KDE developers but for the people who chose to create an incompatible fork.
OTOH, the cleanup that *will* work long term and in the real world will IMHO come from the KDE 4 effort. Some work has already even been done in 3.4 and 3.5.
Additionally, an admin setting up KDE for his users has a powerful tool to remove options unneeded in his setup: The kiosk framework including the kiosktool as graphical frontend.
> I believe it would be a great project to have a QT
> based lightweight GUI. The issue is not GTK vs. QT
> zealotry. We just need more choice among the
> lightweight but powerful GUIs. It should not just be
> a port of XFCE but something entirely new.
Of course you can start one. You just need to convince enough people *why* we need more choice so bad that it would justify spending the huge effort of creating a whole new desktop environment (Hint: Personally I don’t really see the need.).
I’ll take application responsiveness and optimized memory usage within applications over being able to boot up KDE 3 seconds faster.
Now if that boot up performance included a stronger memory management solution that all third party apps can leverage then I’m all for it.
Edited 2005-12-20 23:14
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1659
“Of course this works only if your kdm will preload your data in the background, which it already does in 10.0 though.”
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1663
“All tests are done with warm disk caches, with cold caches the KDE case actually quadruples(!), but at least some of current distributions use various preloading techniques anyway, and this laptop has bloody slow disk (and loading things from the disk could use some improvements – MS Windows’s been reordering data on the disk for faster reading during next startup since when, W2k? ).”
Without preloading or caching KDE on system startup/KDM , KDE is still slow. On a multi-user machine, you can easily encounter this (e.g. one user uses Gnome or something else, logs out, then the next person uses KDE). Even in Suse 10, for me from cold caches reading off of disk is still heck of a lot faster with GNOME and of course, Xfce.
Let me just add that the reason why I see it as somewhat invalid is that they are bypassing the real bottleneck of KDE: the fact that is has to crunch at the hard drive like mad to start with the useable functionality it needs.
“That’s more than just removing the KDE applications though, it looks as though there were some very noticable code changes as well.”
Well XML is code, and editing some XMLGUI files will create very noticeable differences from stock KDE. But it’s not the same as changes to the actual program code.
I downloaded the packages when I first came across the posting a week or two ago.
For me though, I noticed the biggest improvement in warm cache booting versus cold cache. Desktop comes up so fast, my splash screen is probably bottlenecking it.
Cold booting is definitely faster as well, though not as big an improvement as I was expecting.
Strangely, the new fontconfig affected my font config (go figure). I can’t quite put my finger on why but my fonts do look a little better now. I have no idea why.
I’m on Suse 10, using preloading, but not prelinking (so kdeinit is doing it’s thing instead). Though I haven’t recreated my preloading config since upgrading to 3.5 and I don’t think the original config is modified by the rpms from Novell, not sure if anything would have changed dramatically. I know it made a difference going from ff 1.07 to 1.5.
Anyways, it’s an interesting technical tweak but I only tried it for experimental reasons. A few seconds extra for the desktop coming up doesn’t bother me as anything more than an academic exercise, I’m happier knowing the desktop is useable as soon as it appears unlike a certain other OS I use from time to time.
Don’t know how this discussion ended up this way, but I’ll throw my 2 cents in:
1. XCFE at work for getting work done.
2. KDE at home for having fun and sometimes working, too
3. GNOME no where; it’s just not user-friendly.
point of this topic was that KDE 3.5 can now start as fast as XFCE… so what is the 40 sec versus 10 sec? gnome versus KDE?
point is, XFCE and gnome have to do this too – so where is the difference?
The question is, is it really KDE’s fault that the system performs poorly when it comes to reading data from the disk? KDE needs to read perhaps 50M of data during its startup, which modern HDDs can do in about a second. Isn’t it perhaps the system’s fault that it needs so much time to get those 50M from the disk?