To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It is my opinion that much of X's perceived slowness and much of Gnome's perceived slowness is really Firefox and Thunderbird drawing performace on X. (I can't speak for the Windows version since I don't have a Windows machine.)
Firefox and Thunderbird are *very* popular applications and run on many people's desktops.
Try this experiment:
1. Open up 2 Gnome apps.
2. Move one window around while overlapping the other and observe the performance.
3. Now open up a Gnome app and move it around on top of a Firefox session. Observe the major difference in performance.
4. Substitute Thunderbird in the same experiment, if you like.
My intent is not to criticize the Mozilla guys; I'm sure they have good reasons for doing things the way that they do.
Anyway, I imagine there is room for performance improvements in Gnome. (Can't speak for KDE as I'm not as familiar with using it on a day to day basis.) I've been hearing very good things about Gnome 2.13/2.14 performance.
Anyway, I run a lot of my users on xdmcp Gnome desktop sessions into a central server at 100mbit. The hardware I use is usually either old or very inexpensive. For reasons of standardization, I leave the X driver set to vesa, which means no hardware acceleration. And interestingly (to me anyway) I have never gotten a complaint about redraw speed from anyone. It's just not an issue for my users.
When I hear people complaining about X's slowness, I sometimes wonder if it's like people who trash transistor amplifiers because vacuum tube amplifiers are so superior. Maybe they are superior and maybe they aren't, but how many non-audiophiles people are going to notice or care?
Edited 2006-02-20 19:50





Member since:
2005-07-06
It's just you. KDE and GNOME are considerably slower than 2K/XP on the same hardware.