Linked by suka on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:19 UTC
KDE "After years of focusing on further improving KDE4 two weeks ago the developers of the free desktop announced the next big step for their project: KDE Frameworks 5.0. But as long-time developer - and Plasma team leader - Aaron Seigo points out in an interview with derStandard.at/web, the source-incompatible changes shall be held to a minimum. Also calls Frameworks 5.0 only the "first step", new Applications and Workspace releases are to follow later, Seigo goes on to talk about the chances in the mobile market with Plasma Active and further areas of collaboration with the other big free desktop: GNOME."
Thread beginning with comment 486901
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cb88
Member since:
2009-04-23

Well I would bash KDE 4 but its flaws should be obvious enough to anyone that tires to run it on slower hardware (anything without opengl support or anything with a slow CPU or lack of ram)

KDE 3.x was good and I like Trinity desktop alot.... e17 and accociated libraries probably blow it away in the performance aspect and I hope that KDE 5 looks toward that direction and leaves all this nonsense behind.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well I would bash KDE 4 but its flaws should be obvious enough to anyone that tires to run it on slower hardware (anything without opengl support or anything with a slow CPU or lack of ram) KDE 3.x was good and I like Trinity desktop alot.... e17 and accociated libraries probably blow it away in the performance aspect and I hope that KDE 5 looks toward that direction and leaves all this nonsense behind.


This is all mere unsupported allegation. I run KDE4 on a recent but low-end, under-powered, low-RAM netbook, and it runs just fine. I have encountered no hardware that used to run KDE3 well that cannot now run KDE4 just as well.

Indeed there may well be old hardware out there with no GPU, a slow CPU and a lack of RAM ... but such hardware will not run ANY recent full-featured OS well. If you have such hardware you have no hope of running KDE4, GNOME, Windows 7, Mac OSX Lion or whatever on it, something like Puppy Linux is probably your only choice.

My question for you is this: why is an observation that there happen to be some older machines still out there which will not run KDE4, GNOME, XFCE, Windows 7 or Mac OSX well in any way a valid criticism of KDE4 in particular?

Hmmmm?

Reply Parent Score: 3

ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

KDE4 (I have version 4.6 installed) is still heavy on resources. I have a rather new laptop which can run KDE at a reasonable speed (still Compiz offers a smoother experience) but I don't use KDE in my daily work simply because I like the laptop to run cool and quiet.

Besides, OP (protomank) didn't question the usefulness of lower level abstraction layers (APIs) - these generally work well and are only a concern to developers anyway.

What he said is that Plasma is an overkill and doesn't really add much value, yet it takes valuable resources (of both developers and users). I couldn't agree more - every time I attempt using KDE4 I end up disabling 90% of effects and more obnoxious features and themes. That makes the environment quite usable but it raises a question why developing a panel, a couple of applets and still not very good menu and desktop search system, has to take so much time and CPU power. And why do I have to invest a better part of an hour or two to get it to what should be a default state for most users.

At the end of the day the only thing I want to do on my PC is running my applications and accessing my data. A desktop should make these tasks easy but other than that it should stay in the background as much as possible. The last thing I want is a desktop-star, continuously taking my attention from productive work to its bells and whistles.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

Aye the KDE 4 series runs noticeably faster than the 3.5x series on my old and trusty 450mhz pentium 2 with 384mb ram. I smell fud when I see people say that KDE 4 is slow.

Edited 2011-08-26 06:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

Yeah sure... your netbook has a GPU and either a 1.6Ghz single or dual core cpu and at least 512Mb ram... perhaps you should reread my post KDE3 does run on alot crappyier hardware hardware that is is respectively also a lot cheaper and energy efficient.

lemur2 ... sigh clearly you have no idea who you are talking to and the lengths I will go to run run what I like ;) KDE 3.5 on Gentoo on an 800Mhz Crusoe runs nicely with jumanji as my browser or opera. It has some opengl acceleration but its pretty minimal.

I find it a valid critisism because there is no reason many of the features of KDE4 cannot run on older hardware... I triple boot XP, Gentoo and svn builds of Haiku OS on the subnotbook I was referring to and the latter has lots of impressive features that even KDE4 lacks like window stacking and tiling that makese sense super fast file searches that doens't bog everything down with nepomunk and clucene based text searches that are also impressively fast.

KDE 3.5 is nice and I like it but I would have liked to have seen an IMPROVEMENT without degradation in performance and no it wasn't too much to expect KDE developers themselves have as time passes even fixed some of the performance regressions they have introduced like the data base backends for plasma I believe it was was quite io bound for no real reason things like that add up massivly especially in a huge project like KDE and throwing cycles or disk io at a problem is not a solution.

Reply Parent Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Well I would bash KDE 4 but its flaws should be obvious enough to anyone that tires to run it on slower hardware (anything without opengl support or anything with a slow CPU or lack of ram)


KDE 4.6 runs exceptionally well on an Asus eeePC 1005HA (1.6 GHz Atom CPU, 1 GB of RAM, 160 GB SATA HD, Intel onboard graphics).

KDE 4.something (it's been awhile) run fairly well on an Asus eeePC 701 (600 MHz Celeron CPU overclocked to 900 MHz, 512 MB RAM, 4 GB SSD with 2 GB SDCard, Intel onboard graphics), although an update to the Intel driver screwed things up (constant screen flicker) and I haven't touched it since.

KDE 4.6 runs exceptionally well on a generic desktop (2.8 GHz Pentium4 CPU, 2 GB RAM, 1.0 TB SATA disk, onboard Intel graphics).

And KDE 4.7 is running exceptionally well on a generic slim desktop at work (2.0 GHz AMD Sempron CPU, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB SATA HD, nVidia GeForce 9400 GT powering 2 1280x1024 LCDs).

Spread across a range of Linux distros (Debian, Kubuntu, Arch) and FreeBSD.

You'd think after all these years, this FUD would end ...

Reply Parent Score: 6

ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

That's not FUD - we just have different experiences or expectations.

I'm using a more powerful machine than any of these mentioned and while the performance is satisfactory the the window manager, menu etc. do not run as smoothly as in Gnome2 with Compiz. Yet KDE manages to drain the battery and spin the fan faster than any other desktop.

That would be fine if lower performance was compensated with a better user experience but for variety of reasons I feel KDE is worse in this regard than both Gnome2 and XFCE. KDE definitely has potential, I think it is just lacking a person or a company that would do to it what Ubuntu did to Gnome2.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

the only problem with your analisys is that you must be running KDE 4 with composite enabled.

To compare it to both systems, you have to disable it entirelly.

Also e17 although it does fancy shadows, it doesnt provite composite except enabling the "bling" module.

to me KDE4 runs amazingly well with a 1ghz cpu and an intel 945.

also on my GF's eeepc.


maybe its just you ! ;)

PS : ( but i understand you, because just switching from opensuse 11.4 to gentoo + git xorg made a complete diference in performance on my desktop)

Reply Parent Score: 1