Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Aug 2009 00:12 UTC, submitted by rexstuff
Thread beginning with comment 377217
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.
Where is your proof?, your own experience mean nothing when making such harsh statements against KDE/Qt.
Side by side comparisons on a variety of hardware over the last year and a half? What KDE4 does or does not expose from other layers is *irrelevant* to users. It is the behavior that KDE4 *exhibits* relative to other desktops that is relevant.
Honestly, your "defenses" are becoming too bizarre to waste time on. Good day to you.
Edited 2009-08-05 14:56 UTC
What KDE4 does or does not expose from other layers is *irrelevant* to users. It is the behavior the KDE4 *exhibits* relative to other desktops that is relevant.
That is a true enough observation in and of itself.
However, exactly where, on some systems, the slowness is occurring is entirely relevant when it comes to the task of fixing the problem.






Member since:
2005-11-12
All you have done is give examples of Desktop Environments not have such issues. Yes great analysis and in-depth benchmarking and review.
You make assumptions that it's slow so it must be the Desktop Environment and your only proof is that the other Desktops Environments are smoother?
Where is your proof?, your own experience mean nothing when making such harsh statements against KDE/Qt.
"However, now that you mention it... your arguments all seem to be theoretical."
Really? I guess all of those complaints about the NVIDIA 17X.x series driver being so slow and then NVIDIA actually fixing it were theoretical.
2D performance is still a issue to people in Linux, and the Desktop Environments adding workarounds and hacks is more proof if you need it.
Edited 2009-08-05 14:59 UTC