On Saturday 27 July 2002 23:24, John Gay wrote: > On Sat 27 Jul 2002 21:59, Frank Van Damme wrote: > > Yow > > > > Just put my hd (maxtor 40 gigs 5400 rpm for therecord - that's also the > > one I swap to) into a p133 (48 MB ram) because my athlon cpu burnt. > > This is your problem ^^^^^^^ > > KDE requires quite a large amount of memory to run. If you consider that X > takes at least 16M to itself that does not leave much for KDE to use. > > My daughter is running KDE2.1 on a 166PentiumMMX with 64M and get 'useable' > performance from it. I would not even like to try running KDE in less than > 64M.
I would rather say that the bottleneck is the software :-) . I remember having konqueror, kmail, pan (gnome stuff), kword, then some instant messaging clients and a ton of Eterms open. Now I can bring the box to it's knees with just kmail alone. > > I just > > couldn't believe my eyes. I thought kde got faster with 3.0, at least > > that's what the kde guys promised us. Some stats, taken on my system > > running enlightenment 0.16, xfree86 4.2 and a minimum of background tasks > > Here is another ^^^ problem. Enlightenment is very resource intensive as > well. Maybe even more so than KDE proper. Mixing this WITH KDE apps on a > memory-starved box is jsut asking for problems. Are you sure you don't work I think this is a mistake commonly made about E. E is just as resource-hungry as you make it. With 2 desktops and a *simple* theme and wallpaper it takes about 2 or 3 megs more then windowmaker with the same eyecandy (read: as little eye-candy as possible). > for that group that 'proved' M$ ran faster than Linux by patching M$ for > performance and disabling every feature on Linux? You mean enabling? I am asking that to myself every now and then :-) . No problem with minimum requirements going up, and off course I just don't try to do this with windows 98 or 2k, which need 64 megs just to boot them up. Well actually I did. But I don't want to compare with a platform which is made heavier artificially. Heck, watching a stupid program clog up the performance on a box with 50.331.648 bytes of mem running a system which is supposed to expand the life cycle of boxes by a few years just scares me. If they could make programs run fast 3 years ago, why can't the same programs run at the same speed now? I was especcially astonished because I ran kde1 and kde2 on this box as well as kde3. One of the biggest issues with kde2 was the performance, so a lot of effort was put into making it faster - so I was wondering wether these experimental packages might be compiled with a badly-chosen version of gcc or anything. It's not only the mem you see - I can swap to a reletivaly fast disk and cpu usage is high. It's not that I use stuff like mosfet's theme (my dad has a Xp theme and ditto mozilla IE skin however ;-) ) > > like cups and 2 Eterms: [...] > > Just *unbearable*. I have yet to start thinking about what running a > > fullblown kde session on this box will do. I remember having 7 apps like > > kword, xmms, kmail,... open at the same time and still enjoying it. Ok > > kmail was never fast but can anyone recommend me a good DE or compiler > > please :-) > > First things first. Get some more memory. This generation of box should be > able to handle at least 64M without complaining. I know that's easier said > than done, but memory is the key to speed. Without enough memory even a P4 > will run like a dog. Off course. Surely I upgraded it when I started gnu/linux for the same reason: kde did not really work well with only 16 megs ;-) > For alt. Desktops, XFCE is extremely light-weight, very configurable and > drag-N-drop aware. If you've never seen CDE before it might take a little > getting used to, but getting rid of Enlightenment and using XFCE instead > will give enormous improvement. Once you've got the QT and KDE libs, most > of your KDE apps should still work, though XFCE is NOT KDE aware, what ever > that means any more. That "kde aware" means you can use it to run with kde instead of kwin I think. > If you want to go the self-compiled route I can tell you, from experience > QTlibs took over 48 Hours to build on a 200Mhz PentiumMMX with a similar > amount of memory. KDE libs take even longer. Again, memory is the key here. > GCC tries to use large hash tables in memory to reduce I/O. However, if you > are still willing to spend upto a week 'round the clock' there are many > object pre-linking optimizations that can be used with QT and KDE, though > they can be dodgy. They have been known to just not work on certain > hardware, so you might end up spending a week compiling something that will > not even run. YMMV. Uhhu. I see. > Hope this expains a few things for you. > Cheers, > > John Gay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]