Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Aug 2009 00:12 UTC, submitted by rexstuff
KDE The KDE team has released KDE 4.3. This release comes packed with improvements and bug fixes - in fact, over the last six months, 10000 bugs were squashed, 2000 feature requests handled, and 63000 changes were checked in by 700 people. We've already talked about this new release in quite some detail last week, but let's take a look at the most important new features anyway.
Thread beginning with comment 377339
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Great!
by segedunum on Wed 5th Aug 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great!"
Member since:

If *everything* was slow, sure, blame the drivers. However, I find it very hard to believe it is just the drivers' fault if only one toolkit ever seems to have a problem.

You can try another variable - the drivers and the graphics chipset - as has been explained quite a few times in this thread and as I'd explained in another post. If it's KDE 4's fault then if you vary the graphics driver and the chipset then the issues should remain. They don't. ATI's Linux drivers are junk right now if you expect everything to work well.

Either you can't face up to the fact that ATI's Linux driver support is pretty useless or you're labouring on this for reasons that are best known to you.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Great!
by siride on Thu 6th Aug 2009 05:02 in reply to "RE[6]: Great!"
siride Member since:

You still can't explain to me why performance of every other toolkit and DE is great, only KDE 4 has problems. From my point of view, the variable is the desktop environment, and changing that variable from KDE 3.5 to KDE 4 using the same drivers, same X server on the same hardware results in drastically different performance. I vary the variable again by using GNOME, or XFCE, or Fluxbox or whatever, different compositing managers (besides KWin 4) and performance is still fine. What else am I supposed to believe, other than that KDE 4 does not make efficient use of what is otherwise decent and performant hardware?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Great!
by superstoned on Thu 6th Aug 2009 13:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Great!"
superstoned Member since:

Using your argumentation, say:
- Qt works fine on windows
- Qt works fine on mac
- Qt sucks on linux.

It is clearly the fault of linux, not of Qt.

The reason:
No other linux toolkit does anything more complex than paint single pixels by itself.

You can't do complex gradients and smooth animations and CSS in the toolkit with that. Think iPhone/Mac OS X like effects. Qt wants to allow the developers to do those things, and the architecture promised it was possible. So they re-enginered their toolkit to be ready for the future.

Apple and Microsoft both have also re-architectured their drivers and graphical systems to do this stuff. Gnome, being 10 years behind as usual, has not. The linux graphics stack, also being 10 years behind, can't handle the cool stuff Qt wants to do - at least not properly.

Now it is Qt's fault that graphics on your system sucks? Get real...

Reply Parent Score: 2