On Tuesday 28 August 2001 21:51, Orlando Andico wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gideon N. Guillen wrote:
> ..
>
> > What do you mean it's slow... it's as fast as GNOME on my box... OK so
> > I have a 1.2 GHz box. ;) Have you tried importing GTK themes to KDE?
> > Maybe you should try it. I think it's under the System Menu, the
> > Legacy Theme Importer. :)
>
> I dunno.. KDE screens pop up faster than GNOME screens. But the individual
> *controls* feel less responsive. I just can't explain it, but even in KDE
> 0.2 I had that feeling. Maybe Qt controls are just slower than GTK.
>
> And there are annoying visual artifacts like when I hide the taskbar.
>
> btw I have an almost-1.0GHz box with 0.5G of RAM. So it's not the
> hardware!
>
I used KDE 2.1 on a 233mhz celeron machine with 196mb of ram, and a 2.4.6
kernel. I didn't experience any sluggishness, I was using the machine also
as in in-house ftp server. I now am using an Athlon 900mhz with 256mb of ram
and notice it is a little bit snappier ;-).
I do not have any problems with artifacts. Actually, I was initially a GNOME
user in the KDE 1.0 days. I switched because of the artifacts that I
encountered on my screen back then. I haven't tried GNOME lately, but, I do
believe that it has improved a lot from when I last tried it. I know people
who use GNOME and are perfectly happy with it too :)
At any rate, my KDE install performance did improve substantially when I
enabled the tmpfs on the /tmp directory. Apparently, KDE does uses the /tmp
directory quite a bit. Removing the disc I/O helped in my case.
> ..
>
> > KDE 2.x is reall slower than GNOME, but, at least in my opnion looks a
> > lot more cool than GNOME. That's just my opnion anyway.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
