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 486957
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


I am using a less powerful machine than most of them ... specifically it has a 1.0 GHz AMD C-50 Ontario APU, and just 1GB of RAM (shared between the CPU and internal GPU).

It runs KDE4 just great. I do not use proprietary graphics drivers, I use the open source drivers from Xorg. There are no issues with fan speed, heat or battery drain. I get about five to six hours use per charge out of an ordinary netbook-class six cell battery. This performance is entirely comparable to Windows 7 on the same machine.

Please do not spread FUD.

Reply Parent Score: 2