| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
A grumpy user's browser review
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 18:36 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)Parent article: A grumpy user's browser review
I don't use KDE, but I use konqueror. While it launch lots of
subsystems at start up, it start faster and use less memory over all.
Far more importantly for me, memory usage is kept below an acceptable
level even after a week of browsing, unlike all the gecko-based
alternatives I have tried.
So I don't see "I'm not a KDE user" an excuse to not try out konqueror,
at least for comparaison purpose.
(Log in to post comments)
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 20:20 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Typing "apt-get install konqueror" was enough to deter me. Man that's a lot of stuff!Konqueror is excellent. I think the KDE project really ought to consider disentangling it from the rest of KDE so that it enjoys more widespread use.
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 21:32 UTC (Wed) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
I tried the rendering speed test as above, and had to recheck thenumbers. 6.5 and 5.7 seconds? Huh? My konqueror, on a 2000 athlon took 3
seconds.
I think I'll put up with the rest of KDE (which is quite good BTW) to
enjoy these speeds.
Derek
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 22:40 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
As I'm sure everyone will realize, comparing your numbers to Mr. Grumpy's numbers is useless. You have no idea what kind of system he has, how much memory, his internet access methods, etc. etc. For it to be informative you have to perform all the timing tests on the same system.
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 23:10 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
My konqueror, on a 2000 athlon took 3 seconds.Reboot and try again.
Firefox takes ~11 seconds to start the first time on my system, and about 3 seconds on subsequent restarts in the same session.
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 23:44 UTC (Wed) by xorbe (guest, #3165) [Link]
No need to reboot, run a program that sucks down all your ram and a little swap space too. Then try again.
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 23:56 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
On my Athlon 2100+:FireFox: 1.3 sec
Konqueror: 1.5 sec
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 12, 2004 7:15 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
While this is seems like a good idea, it would be *very* hard to realize.Basically konqueror is *the* integral application of kde, relying very heavily
on the features provided by the framework. Konqy alone almost can't do
anything, neither accessing local or remote file, neither displaying anything,
almost everything is done by using the framework.
Bye
Alex
A grumpy user's browser review
Posted Feb 11, 2004 22:05 UTC (Wed) by wolfrider (guest, #3105) [Link]
--Yah; if you already have KDE's supporting libraries installed, you can use konqueror from any KDE-aware GUI. I run it all the time from Sawfish.--OTOH, if you don't already have anything related to KDE installed, it's prolly not worth it.
I agree
Posted Feb 13, 2004 16:48 UTC (Fri) by gleef (guest, #1004) [Link]
My computers' deskops are GNOME, I don't use "the whole KDE infrastructure", nor do I have it installed. However, I have happily used Konqueror on my system, and found it to be a useful and capable browser. All it demands is some libraries, the same thing that most browsers demand.In particular, Galeon, which was reviewed, is just as demanding of "the whole GNOME infrastructure", in that it requires some core GNOME libraries.
I don't use Konqueror as my primary browser, but the "infrastructure" thing sounds like a lame and FUDdy excuse not to include it in a review. There's enough FUD in the world, there's no need for us to go flinging it ourselves.