KDE 3.3 released

[solarismka]

quote:

How the fuck did you manage that?

KDE is slow for me on 256MB.

What distro you use?

And what version of KDE?

You didn't do anything clever like recompile it after removing all the bloat, did you?

I'm using the standard install of Fedora Core 1 with KDE 3.1.  

The machine itself is a 24 mb ram with a p2 233mhz  and a 40gig HD.  the graphics card is a 2 mb S3.  A very old box I baught a few years ago.  XP will not even fit on this ,machine.  The hardware specs are way too small.  I'v tried.  I've used XP on a 44 2.ghz machine with a nVida Graphics card and over 500+ mb of ram and for me it was slow as shit.  My small box over there is much faster!

But like I have stated.  I have reasent;y upgraded to KDE 3.2 and it has gotten a little quicker.  I'm running a 2.4 kernel though.  Not the 2.6 so if I upgraded the kernel I'd assume I'd get a bigger boost in speed.  But i'm happy with the 2.4 for now.

[Refalm]

Hahaha:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/?PROCESS=show&ID=20026392&AT=39163697-39020390t-10000004c

 

quote:C.Ecker: I, for one, am waiting for a couple of features from KDE:

1) A browser that lets programs install from the Internet without my knowledge or consent
2) Buffer Overflow via open TCP/IP ports
3) Ability to run programs out of the Internet Temporary Files cache
4) Desktop inexplicably linked to Internet Browser
5) Support of myriad spyware and adware programs available
6) Removal of the popup blocker from the browser
7) An insecure, bloated, hackable eMail client integrated into the OS

Until KDE gets their act together, they're never gonna be as good as Windows!

[Aloone_Jonez]

[ August 20, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

[hm_murdock]

Does this mean that KDE 3.2 will possible find its way onto the popular apt repositories.

Probably not. Why do I care anyway? I don't really like it. It's just that everybody says "BUT JIIMEY!!!11 U SHULD TRY TEH KED 3.2!!!1111 ITS TEH R0X0R!!!!111LOLOLOLOLOL"

It isn't on apt, and it isn't worth going to track down the 32 updated RPMs req'd to install it.

You'd think that the "Red Hat 9" RPMs would install on a straight-off-the-CD RH9 install, but no. Whoever made those RPMs is a dipshit.

[WMD]

You could compile it.  Assuming that you start the compile script and then go on vacation.  

3.2 is hands-down faster than 3.1, though.

[KernelPanic]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Does this mean that KDE 3.2 will possible find its way onto the popular apt repositories.

Probably not. Why do I care anyway? I don't really like it. It's just that everybody says "BUT JIIMEY!!!11 U SHULD TRY TEH KED 3.2!!!1111 ITS TEH R0X0R!!!!111LOLOLOLOLOL"

It isn't on apt, and it isn't worth going to track down the 32 updated RPMs req'd to install it.

You'd think that the "Red Hat 9" RPMs would install on a straight-off-the-CD RH9 install, but no. Whoever made those RPMs is a dipshit.

I think that the maintainers of RH9 repositories only put security and important stuff in.
The rest of the world has jumped ship to Fedora Jimmy  

Anyway, check out the KDE-Redhat project. They will hook you up, fo shizzle!

[Commander]

kde runs sluggish on my 2ghz 256 mg box with 600 megs of swap.  but i'm sticking with it for now.  it's too customized for me to switch.  but when i get my suse 9.1 pro (and i hope to god that it's very soon)  i'll do a fresh install with something else.  maybe xfce or fluxbox.

[WMD]

Suse 9.1 = KDE 3.2.  KDE would get faster after that upgrade.