Linked by lemur2 on Thu 26th Jan 2012 22:42 UTC
KDE KDE has announced its latest set of releases, providing major updates to KDE Plasma Workspaces, KDE Applications, and the KDE Platform. Version 4.8 provides many new features, and improved stability, performance and dynamic power management.
Thread beginning with comment 505110
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
KDE performance
by ndrw on Mon 30th Jan 2012 07:56 UTC
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

My take on this issue is that while KDE4 is somewhat heavier than other environments, the difference in CPU usage or memory consumption does not matter much on most of the hardware people use.

The problem with KDE is that it puts strain on the underlying subsystems and hardware drivers. From my experience, it works fairly well on legacy hardware, where most of the new stuff is disabled anyway, or it requires top-notch drivers supporting all the new and fancy features. The ugly truth is that most of the linux hardware drivers are half baked and require application writers to carefully maneuver their way through supported features.

On my system KDE4.7 is constantly using 100% of one (of four) CPU cores. This of course makes the whole system run like crap but I doubt this is how it is supposed to work (I mean, no one could screw the implementation up so badly, even if he/she tried very hard). More likely, there is some conflict between KDE and some of the subsystems (audio in my case).

Ultimately, though, it is the job of KDE4 programmers and distributors to make their product work well. The users have all rights to complain if it is unusable out of the box and it is not their job to fix it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE performance
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jan 2012 09:40 in reply to "KDE performance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

My take on this issue is that while KDE4 is somewhat heavier than other environments, the difference in CPU usage or memory consumption does not matter much on most of the hardware people use.

The problem with KDE is that it puts strain on the underlying subsystems and hardware drivers. From my experience, it works fairly well on legacy hardware, where most of the new stuff is disabled anyway, or it requires top-notch drivers supporting all the new and fancy features. The ugly truth is that most of the linux hardware drivers are half baked and require application writers to carefully maneuver their way through supported features.

On my system KDE4.7 is constantly using 100% of one (of four) CPU cores. This of course makes the whole system run like crap but I doubt this is how it is supposed to work (I mean, no one could screw the implementation up so badly, even if he/she tried very hard). More likely, there is some conflict between KDE and some of the subsystems (audio in my case).

Ultimately, though, it is the job of KDE4 programmers and distributors to make their product work well. The users have all rights to complain if it is unusable out of the box and it is not their job to fix it.


Unfortunately your system is "broken" outside of KDE. As you speculate, the problem is most probably in the drivers you are using. This has nothing to do with KDE. KDE itself, on a normal working system, simply does not behave anything like you describe.

KDE developers make a product that performs extremely well for millions upon millions of users on many hundreds (if not thousands) of different systems. It is not at all a "heavy" environment, as you speculate. One only has to run KDE on an under-resourced netbook to realise this. KDE4 programmers and distributors HAVE MADE their product work well.

KDE developers do not have any particular obligation to fix your particular system's graphics drivers (or whatever the problem, external to KDE, might happen to be on your particular system). Once again, it is NOT the job of KDE developers o fix problems in graphics drivers with some obscure card or another.

Have you submitted a detailed bug report to the graphics driver developers?

If you haven't done so, I'm afraid you have no "rights" at all to complain. KDE developers simply don't have to cater to your unique isolated problems with other parts of your particular system.

Edited 2012-01-30 09:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE performance
by ndrw on Mon 30th Jan 2012 11:16 in reply to "RE: KDE performance"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Have you submitted a detailed bug report to the graphics driver developers?


I didn't bother with it because I found the solution myself. Xfce.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: KDE performance
by saynte on Mon 30th Jan 2012 10:20 in reply to "KDE performance"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

You make a good point. If the user experiences that a CPU core is constantly burned while using KDE, then they should be reporting it through KDE. In some sense KDE is to 'blame' in the sense that they stand between the underlying system and the user, and they should protect the user from such things.

Buggy video drivers, that don't work well in certain circumstances? I believe KDE should be adding ugly hacks around this in their system, while at the same time petitioning to get things fixed in the video drivers so the hacks can eventually be removed.

I think that it's the only way to get the users what they need over the long and short term.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE performance
by ndrw on Mon 30th Jan 2012 11:06 in reply to "RE: KDE performance"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Yup, my point exactly.

In an "ideal world" all the users trying KDE4 would have enough knowledge and patience to identify the exact cause of the problem (and perhaps fix it - that's often equivalent to identifying the culprit), go to a valid bug tracker and never ever mention in public that KDE is running slow or is unstable (even if that's exactly what they experience).

But in the real life the users will spend 1~2 hours on "trying new KDE4", hit an issue they can't resolve themselves, and spread the word to anyone daring to ask about how KDE4 is slow and unstable.

But, is it fair? Well, IMHO it's not fair that KDE4 gets all the blame. But they do deserve bad publicity. After all it is their product that wasn't robust enough and their poor design and testing practices that produced to it.

Besides, who cares?, Ultimately, the goal is to make a better DE satisfying needs of more and more users and not to cover problems with excuses.

Reply Parent Score: 2