On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:57:50 +0100 (CET) Hanno Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi: All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, but I use KDE 1.x at work and KDE 2.1 at home (after trying 2.0 for a few weeks) -- and I believe that 2.1 may take a bit longer to initialize than earlier releases, but that it actually responds a bit faster after it is up and running than the earlier releases. This is all on fairly old 586 desktop hardware (Intel, AMD and Cyrix). Later, Colin > Hi, > > > I am running KDE as my primary work environment on an outdated laptop with > a Pentium MMX 233 and 160 MB Ram. Because it is a laptop, its components > are slower than desktop PC components. > > The machine runs Debian testing packages and KDE built for potato, using > the current XFree 3.x server from testing. > > What I was wondering about: Is it just me or is KDE getting slower with > recent builds? My machine is of course slow by todays standards to begin > with, but it has more than enough RAM to cope with most heavy > applications. > > Problem is: I cannot provide objective numbers, only anecdotical > reference. > > When I started using KDE on with 2.0, it did not feel as slow as today. > Logging on the environment and starting applications appears to be much > slower than it used to. > > Can anyone confirm this? > > > Also, there is this guy on Slashdot who keeps posting the following > whenever KDE is mentioned: > > Optimizing the source build (Score:5, Informative) > by darial on Monday February 26, @08:52PM EST (#93) > (User #177051 Info) > > For those who build KDE from source, and ESPECIALLY the > pacakagers at big distros, consider strongly doing the > folowing: > > set the -no-g++-exceptions flag when building qt > > and set the folowing options for all qt and kde: > -03 > -mpentiumpro (or -march=pentiumpro for ppro only objs) > > the exceptions optimization literally reduces the size of > everyting related to qt by several megs a piece with no > detriemntal effects. -03 is important because it > turns on inlining, which is a big win for C++ code with > lots of tiny functions. And optimizing for modern chips should > be standard for anyone. These changes sped up my KDE load time > by 50%, and made the whole thing feel much "snappier" and > smoother. Don't let KDE2 get a rep for slowness just because > you used lousy compiler options. (and yes, I posted something > similar to the kde2.0 article, but I'm going to repeat it until > the packagers get it right) > > Is he right? Could I help my machine by doing own builds for some specific > packages? Which ones? (I doubt that -mpentiumpro will help me on my > Pentium MMX, though.) > > > Greetings, > > Hanno > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
