| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
It's about time...It's about time...Posted Aug 4, 2005 6:55 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: It's about time... by jabby Parent article: Our bloat problem it can only power about 4-5 terminals with KDE or GNOME and Firefox before the RAM on the LTSP server is exhausted As far as I remember, KDE was never a lean fast software, even the 1.0 version was considered to be a slow memory hog, so it's not surprising at all that it's still a bloat. Fortunately it's not compulsory to use KDE - on my desktop I have 512 MB RAM and it's very rarely swapping, if at all.
(Log in to post comments)
KDE and bloat Posted Aug 4, 2005 11:20 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] Since KDE is a desktop environment, it's not surprising that it is not as lightweight as a "simple" windowmanager. There is no such thing as a free lunch. KDE uses more memory because it provides you with a helluva lot more than a windowmanager does, but that doesn't mean KDE is bloated.
I'm just a user, not a KDE developer, so won't claim to know much about the issue, however I do know that it is an issue the KDE developers have been working on for quite some time and if I recall correctly, the current KDE 3.X releases doesn't really use more memory than KDE 2 did, even though it provides a lot more.
I did a little google search and found these items as proof that the KDE developers are very much aware of this and continue to work on making KDE use as few ressources as possible:
I'm sure there are KDE developers that are reading LWN, so I I hope they'll chime in sooner or later with more accurate info about the work that's been done and is still going on.
KDE and bloat Posted Aug 4, 2005 13:44 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] KDE developers are very much aware of this and continue to work on making KDE use as few ressources as possibleI'm aware of this - I seem to remember that when KDE2 was released, the application startup was supposed to be faster in KDE2 than KDE1. Unfortunately my experience showed that KDE2 was slower than KDE1 because of the memory usage. I think this is really a feature issue: I use Opera and Firefox on both Linux and Windows and the Windows versions didn't seem to be faster.
|
|
||||||||||||