On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:54:20AM +1100, Karl Clements wrote: > <reply who="Andre Pang" date="Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:19:20 +1100"> ... > > What were you doing on KDE that was so much slower? KMail was > > slow? Konqueror? I don't believe that KDE is that much slower > > than Win2K given the same hardware (or whether it's slower at > > all). > > Konqueror was slower to start than ie, kmail well I ditched that after > importing my old oe mail because it was slow as well, my system was > sitting at roughly 75% memory usage with kde, it now sits alot lower with > fluxbox, Konqueror as a file browser was painful. > > In addition to the previously mentioned problems i haven't found a decent > browser for X as yet, i compiled mozilla it didn't install to where i told > it to, i compiled skipstone once it was installed it didn't run at all > (gtkmozembed error) opera was dodgey, netscape was hella slow.
I can't believe you tried compiling mozilla from source! Gutsy move. Mozilla, IMO, is a very good graphical browser. Not to say that Konqueror isn't too - I just don't use it regularly, so can't comment. Anyway, I'd recommend installing mozilla from a binary package. > the fact that it takes about half as much time to open ie on a 250mhz > machine than it does mozilla on a 300 with more ram leads me to think > there is room for improvement. You could get mozilla to automatically launch when you log in. This is what I do (and, incidentally, what mswindows does behind your back). Pete
msg19141/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
