On Thursday 13 March 2003 00:31, Nick Leverton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:28:15PM +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 21:42, Frank Van Damme wrote: > > > Second, It may not be the design goal to run on the lowest end > > > stuff (like a system built out of Linux, Dietlibc, TinyX and twm > > > or something :-) ), ...... > > > > Current KDE works pretty well on machines that are more than 3 > > years old. If anything, they'd need more -- and cheap -- memory. > > What more do you want? Those are machines you can't even buy > > anymore. > > One of Linux's "selling propositions" is that it makes better use of > the hardware and avoids the need for expensive upgrades.
Linux != KDE Also, see below. > I think > it's good that as much software as possible be made as slim and fast > as possible. Or at least that the core framework (in this case KDE) > be lean and fast, allowing users to install as much "bloat" as they > want. So, if mysteriously KDE's memory requirement overnight grew by 256MB -- would you stop using it or would you just add memory because it's well worth it? > That said, I run KDE3.1 here on a 200MHz 128Mb K6/2, and am generally > reasonable satisfied with its performance as long as I don't have too > many large applications running. That machine is how old? 5 years? 6 years? You're very lucky that a completely up to date desktop environment still runs usably on such a machine. I'd find it utterly unreasonable to ask KDE developers to accommodate even lower end machines. That doesn't make those machines useless, of course. Just put them to a purpose that fits their age. Michael [No CC, please!] -- Michael Schuerig The usual excuse for our most unspeakable mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] public acts is that they are necessary. http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Judith N. Shklar
