Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Nov 2008 19:19 UTC, submitted by AdamW
Thread beginning with comment 337523
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: This does actually fill a need
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Nov 2008 05:55
in reply to "RE[2]: This does actually fill a need"
Au contraire, KDE 4.1 is the fastest desktop ... on suitable hardware. Rather than au contraire, I think you mean however.
Actually, no. I actually meant "au contraire", which means "quite the opposite".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/au_contraire
The claim was this:
The only problem is the bloated KDE 4.1 desktop. It's much slower than Windows XP on say a 1 GHz processor and 256 MiB RAM
KDE 4.1 desktop is in fact faster than Windows XP ... on hardware which has a graphics GPU with a working 2D driver for Linux.
KDE 4.1 uses the GPU to accelerate the rendering of the desktop graphics. Windows XP doesn't, it uses software to render the desktop graphics.
Of course, on systems where there is a bug in the 2D graphics driver that makes the GPU render many times SLOWER than software rendering, KDE 4.1 won't work at all well on such a system, and this graphics bug could give people the mistaken impression that KDE 4.1 is slow and bloated.
Edited 2008-11-18 05:56 UTC
RE[4]: This does actually fill a need
by mounty on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:03
in reply to "RE[3]: This does actually fill a need"
RE[4]: This does actually fill a need
by sigzero on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:54
in reply to "RE[3]: This does actually fill a need"





Member since:
2005-12-12
Au contraire, KDE 4.1 is the fastest desktop ... on suitable hardware.
Rather than au contraire, I think you mean however.