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 294285
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by GeneralZod on Fri 4th Jan 2008 22:53 UTC 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and withdrawn by the same guy who presented the figures originally: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[5]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by aseigo on Sat 5th Jan 2008 01:26 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

> but Gsysguard seems to do a better job of reporting
> than Ksysguard does

you need to check out ksysguard in kde4 then ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by gustl on Sun 6th Jan 2008 20:31 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

"Unused memory is wasted memory"

Well - only up to the point when you have to specify how much memory the FE-code is allowed to take.
Then you start to wonder, whether you need to leave 0.5 or 4 GB of memory to KDE ;)

I like the way Ksysguard shows the cached memory. I then can see how much is really necessary for the apps, and how much is discardable to make room for my FE number crunching.

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[5]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!
by elsewhere on Sat 5th Jan 2008 07:29 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE 4!!!!!!!!!!!!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

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 interesting to note that KDE 3.5.6 is installable *and* usable (that being a relative term, of course) on the Nokia N770 and N800 internet tablets, with 64/128MB memory. Including Konq etc. Not perfectly, but the fact that it was accomplished by users and not KDE devs, speaks volumes about the basic design of KDE. Would be even more interesting to see what could be done with some optimizations from the KDE team, or a port to Qtopia instead of QT/X11 etc.

I think it emphasizes the fact that KDE is dependent upon the underlying platform, something frequently overlooked. Most standard linux distros include generic configs that are not optimized for resource or performance efficiency. Contrast that to the Nokia platforms, which have been designed as optimized platforms, and the difference is striking.

Put another way, I suspect that when KDE4 apps start appearing on Vista, for instance, people will complain that KDE4 needs at least 2GB of RAM and a high-end video card to run properly.

Reply Parent Score: 9