Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Nov 2011 21:31 UTC, submitted by Z_God
KDE Disappointed with KDE 4's performance and other shortcomings, Timothy Pearson continued KDE 3.5 development under the name Trinity. Today the first third major update of the Trinity Desktop Environment is released, providing an alternative upgrade path for KDE users who do not feel comfortable with KDE 4.
Thread beginning with comment 495322
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Strange
by Laurence on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Strange"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Thom, I read a lot of your comments and articles, but this one is just bullshit. I usualy use Openbox on my laptop (a Dell Vostro 1310, CPU Intel T5670 @ 1.8GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel Graphics) and I tried KDE4 just a few weeks ago.

Apart from the fact that I don't like too much eyecandy I can tell you I had no issues with the interface. No lag whatsoever in animations and graphics. There was no problem at all with compositing... so I can conclude that either you have a problem with KDE4 yourself or your hardware doesn't like it (sucks!)


Seriously, why do you people keep posting bullshit anecdotal evidence about your own personal hardware. It's completely worthless data.

So many things will affect KDE4's performance:
* specific hardware (this is even more of an issue with pre-builds like laptops as the same graphics card can behave differently in one than it can in the other. Also I've noticed upgrading from HDD to SSD has made my compositing noticeably smoother - in spite of the upgrade not being directly related to graphics hardware)
* drivers (often there's more than one open source and closed binary - all of which behave differently on different hardware)
* what Linux distro you're running (some offer better performance out of the box than others on the same hardware)
* what KDE tweaks you're running (render method, composite quality vs speed, etc)
* what effects you've selected (some are more intensive than others)
* BIOS tweaks (if you know what you're doing, you can get some noticeable performance differences by just changing a few options in the BIOS)
* the amount of crap you're running at a time (self explanatory really)
* your output resolution
...and so on.

So all this shit about "it runs well on xyz" etc is completely meaningless.


Also, I believe the KDE team were using the same excuses as MS were for Vista's poor performance and stability: poor graphics drivers.
You can read into that statement whichever way you want ;)

Edited 2011-11-02 12:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3