Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jan 2008 20:47 UTC
KDE KDE's Aaron Seigo (who owes me a Martini) wrote about a few often-heard misconceptions and questions regarding KDE 4.0, which is supposed to be released January 11th. "Now that 4.0.0 is tagged and out and that bit of worry and concern is behind me for the moment, I wanted to take a moment to talk really bluntly about 4.0. In particular, I'm going to address some of the common memes in fairly random order that I see about kde 3.5 and 4.0. I'm going to speak bluntly (though not rudely) so prepare yourself."
Thread beginning with comment 294282
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 4th Jan 2008 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

------------and blanket claims like this (faster how? Faster in every conceivable way? What if KDE4 "does more" than KDE3 but takes slightly more time to do it - can it be called "faster" then?) are really quite naive.------------

Faster how, I'm talking in terms of daily usage. Opening applications, windows, and such. Does it "feel" faster? Does it feel like it's in your way, or feel more permissive and smooth?(and yes, I know that's pretty subjective)

Actually, your own link is pretty indicitive of what I'm taking to mind. (KDE devel)

==========KDE 4 is going to be a serious contender for a high-performance, good looking interface on low resource machines like the Eee PC, and I can't wait to try it out on one.==============

Now mind you, I don't look at 3.5 as slouchy, slow, software. I like it, a lot. But 4 seems to be more slick and slippery from everything I'm reading, in all corners. 30-40%? I never believed the claims there. But all things considered, there seems to be universal agreement on it being fsaster.

And as far as memory usage:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/14/kde-uses-les...

I don't expect those numbers either, I expect the completed product to naturally use more. But this is worth noting:

======The old version(3.5) needed 348MB to work comfortably while the new one(4.0) sail through the same tests using only 228MB.========

My expectation is high 2xx. More features naturally and obviously means greater usage. But going from mid 3's to high 2's is a great accomplishment and well worth looking forward to in my book.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by GeneralZod on Fri 4th Jan 2008 22:53 in reply to "RE[2]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
GeneralZod Member since:
2007-08-03

"And as far as memory usage:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/14/kde-uses-les.....

I don't expect those numbers either, I expect the completed product to naturally use more. But this is worth noting:

'The old version(3.5) needed 348MB to work comfortably while the new one(4.0) sail through the same tests using only 228MB'"

Which really highlights my point about benchmarking being difficult: the results presented there, while in some ways flattering to KDE, are absolutely, wildly false. KDE3.5 does not take 348MB to work; I've run it easily on a 256MB computer on which I had forgotten to enable swap! The results were debunked here by Lubos and Thiago, who know a lot about profiling and memory usage:

http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3138

and withdrawn by the same guy who presented the figures originally:

http://www.jarzebski.pl/read/kde-3-5-vs-4-0-round-two.so

[in fact, his later figures suggest that KDE4 with compositing uses substantially *more* RAM than KDE3!]

It's kind of weird: I've been combatting claims of KDE's bloatedness compared to GNOME ad nauseum for ages now (
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=153631&highlight=kde+memor..., http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2015680&postcount=1235 ) and now, because of one article that got re-posted all over the place without people bothering to check their facts, I'm having to do the opposite ;) How ironic!

Edited 2008-01-04 22:56

Reply Parent Score: 6

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Haha, ok, fair enough. Let's wait until a few days/weeks/months until after KDE4 is officially released, and see what will happen when someone compares finished products.

Also, in your posts I saw the free command I never knew that existed.

But with your arguments on u/forum in mind, there's got to be a way to accurately gauge this thing.

Also, I agree with the notion that unused memory is wasted memory, but Gsysguard seems to do a better job of reporting than Ksysguard does.(by dividing the caches away from actual memory usage)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by segedunum on Sat 5th Jan 2008 00:59 in reply to "RE[3]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Which really highlights my point about benchmarking being difficult: the results presented there, while in some ways flattering to KDE, are absolutely, wildly false. KDE3.5 does not take 348MB to work

Even if you can get accurate memory measurements (which you can't really), it's made even more difficult by shared libraries and the fact that a desktop might consume more comparable memory on startup, but allow applications started thereafter to consume less comparable memory by reusing loaded components. How can you say that it uses more or less memory? You can't, but KDE tends to do a lot of this stuff.

You could compare functional requirements and ask how much memory is consumed when you have a web browser open, but that is a much more complete analysis I have never seen anyone do yet. Even then, it's still open to interpretation what comparable functionality is consuming all the memory.

It's kind of weird: I've been combatting claims of KDE's bloatedness compared to GNOME ad nauseum for ages now (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=153631&highlight=kde+memor..., http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2015680&postcount=1235)

Ahhh, the Ubuntu forums. Full of exceptionally knowledgeable ejits who are ready, willing and able to hand out lots of accurate advice on what desktop eats all your memory to the unsuspecting newbie user, sending them right back to where they came from. Ubuntu may be number one on distrowatch, but it's got little chance of going beyond that bubble.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by melkor on Sat 5th Jan 2008 00:50 in reply to "RE[2]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Wow, people do love to bash KDE for any reasons they can find.

Let's do an example:

Microsoft Windows and Office

Each version is supposedly faster, but each version becomes more and more bloated (and slower), requiring faster hardware to take advantage of it all and make it seem like it's faster. Don't believe me - try running MS Office 2007 on an Athlon 1ghz, then a AMD 3000 (barton core), then a dual core Intel, say E6600. Notice the speed difference.

Speed is relevant - it has long been known that software developers take advantage of newer, faster hardware, and use that to offset bloated code. This is the norm (unless you just use blackbox/fluxbox, which will forever stay unusable, because speed is more important to them than usability).

Don't just go blasting KDE, you might want to have a look at a lot of other projects.

In fact, each release of KDE 3.x was slightly quicker than the previous one I might add.

I think you'll find that people are using such powerful graphics cards today, that that'll take a nice load off both the cpu core, and the memory. People want fancy, nice, cool looking desktop environments that fart, burp and shit themselves when you look at them, and the result is always going to be that it takes time to process the underlying code to achieve that "look".

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by spaceLem on Sun 6th Jan 2008 17:59 in reply to "RE[3]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
spaceLem Member since:
2007-07-26

This is the norm (unless you just use blackbox/fluxbox, which will forever stay unusable, because speed is more important to them than usability)
.

Unusable? They're incredibly versatile, and Fluxbox is so scriptable I can do anything in Fluxbox that I can do in GNOME, faster and more easily. It's really easy to set up too. Also Fluxbox is better for my RSI, as I can make sure there's very little mouse needed.

Lack of clicky boxes (which you can have in Fluxbox if you want) != unusable.

Reply Parent Score: 3