Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: WMD on 20 August 2004, 02:05

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: WMD on 20 August 2004, 02:05
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/19/1811251.shtml?tid=189&tid=121&tid=106&tid=218 (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/19/1811251.shtml?tid=189&tid=121&tid=106&tid=218)
And kde.org is slashdotted already.  :D

Anyways, isn't this a bit soon?  3.2 isn't that old...
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: solarismka on 20 August 2004, 03:16
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/19/1811251.shtml?tid=189&tid=121&tid=106&tid=218 (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/19/1811251.shtml?tid=189&tid=121&tid=106&tid=218)
And kde.org is slashdotted already.   :D  

Anyways, isn't this a bit soon?  3.2 isn't that old...


Damn!  I just upgraded to 3.2!  But I am glad that they are still improving
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 03:20
KDE sucks, it's bloated and slow, it fucks up and locks up.

KDE eats RAM, you shouldn't need 512MB just to word process, 64MB should be more than enough.

Even Windows XP is faster than KDE.

I can load up 20 large JPG files in Flux Box and it's faster than KDE is with just an xterm box open.

I'm happy with 256MB of RAM, why should I buy another 256MB and install KDE and watch my system become more unstable and slow.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: solarismka on 20 August 2004, 03:34
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
KDE sucks, it's bloated and slow, it fucks up and locks up.


Your opinion.  KDE is a lot faster than that of XP.  Its skinnable and has a more friendly user face.

to clear up the FUD.

http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/ (http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/)


 
quote:

KDE eats RAM, you shouldn't need 512MB just to word process, 64MB should be more than enough.


Bull! I'm running KDE on 24mb ram!  Works fine!  XP can't even install on that machine.

 
quote:
Even Windows XP is faster than KDE.


LOL.  

 
quote:

I can load up 20 large JPG files in Flux Box and it's faster than KDE is with just an xterm box open.


Of course Flux Box is a lighter GUI.  Its a lot lighter than even XP!

 
quote:

I'm happy with 256MB of RAM, why should I buy another 256MB and install KDE and watch my system become more unstable and slow.


I agree.  Why should anyone pay for more ram to run windows when KDE can even run on 24 mb's of ram with no problem!  

KDE.  stable, fast and user friendly!
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: WMD on 20 August 2004, 04:09
KDE certainly isn't slow, as long as you let it use that huge chunk of RAM it likes.  Usually 150MB assuming no swap and including disk cache.
You can run it on a 24/32MB machine, but it's slow and needs lots of disk churning.  I should get my Slack 9.1 drive back into my 32MB machine and upgrade it to 3.2.3 from 3.1.4, see if that machine speeds up.  (I doubt it will)
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 04:14
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:

Your opinion. KDE is a lot faster than that of XP. Its skinnable and has a more friendly user face.

to clear up the FUD.

http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/ (http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/)


Not FUD but as you have already stated it's my opinion.

 
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:
Bull! I'm running KDE on 24mb ram! Works fine! XP can't even install on that machine.


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?

 
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:

LOL!


My personal experiance is differant to yours, Viper has also said that he finds XP faster than KDE: http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000758&p=3 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000758&p=3)

 
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:

Of course Flux Box is a lighter GUI. Its a lot lighter than even XP!


Flux Box is also just as easy to use because it's faster and more stable than KDE.

ICEWM is also very easy to use, and it is also lot faster than KDE.

 
quote:
Originally posted by kn0wn / BOB:

I agree. Why should anyone pay for more ram to run windows when KDE can even run on 24 mb's of ram with no problem!

KDE. stable, fast and user friendly!


Windows XP is pretty snappy on my 256MB system, KDE is fucktardedly slow, but that's just my personal experiance.

[ August 19, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: skyman8081 on 20 August 2004, 04:16
Meh.  KDE is overrated.

I like GNOME better. (even if it is as bloated at KDE)

KDE runs sluggish on my box

and I like the GNOME UI better.

but I usually have an XFCE sesh open just for XMMS/Juk

EDIT: added distro

[ August 19, 2004: Message edited by: Sauron / B0B ]

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 04:22
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
KDE certainly isn't slow, as long as you let it use that huge chunk of RAM it likes.  Usually 150MB assuming no swap and including disk cache.
You can run it on a 24/32MB machine, but it's slow and needs lots of disk churning.  I should get my Slack 9.1 drive back into my 32MB machine and upgrade it to 3.2.3 from 3.1.4, see if that machine speeds up.  (I doubt it will)


Why don't you use Flux Box, XFE, or ICEWM?

KDE is probably OK on 512MB, but if you only have 32MB Flux Box is good.

I you find KDE easier to use, then you could just use it to run small programs and do your system administration in, and just use Flux Box to run the larger applications.

The ICEWM  or Fluxbox are easy enough for a newb like me.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 04:32
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
Meh.  KDE is overrated.

I agree.

 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
I like GNOME better. (even if it is as bloated at KDE)

I've not used GNOME much the version I last used on Redhat 9 was faster than KDE for some things but slower for others.

 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:

KDE runs sluggish on my box


Is GNOME any faster for you?

 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:

  • Athlon XP 2200+
  • 512 MB RAM
  • 1 GB Swap
  • Geforce FX 5200
  • Gentoo Linux 1.4
[/b]


Bloody hell, no wonder its slow for me on my 256MB 1800MHz machine.

 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
and I like the GNOME UI better.


I prefer some this in KDEs UI and other thing in GNOME's UI.

 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:

but I usually have an XFCE sesh open just for XMMS/Juk

EDIT: added distro



XFCE is a lot more stable and it's faster too.

[ August 19, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: skyman8081 on 20 August 2004, 04:36
yesh, XFCE brings up a desktop instantly.

If I could find a command-line only app that could play m3u playlists, and support looping, I wouldn't even need the XFCE sesh
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 04:41
Do you find GNOME any faster than KDE?

[ August 19, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: skyman8081 on 20 August 2004, 04:42
I did in fact find it to run faster on my box.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 04:44
Why don't you just drop GNOME and use XFCE?
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: skyman8081 on 20 August 2004, 04:47
I like Gnome's UI

I'm not a big fan of XFCE I just use it on a seperate sesh for XMMS
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: WMD on 20 August 2004, 04:49
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Why don't you use Flux Box, XFE, or ICEWM?

KDE is probably OK on 512MB, but if you only have 32MB Flux Box is good.

Right now I just have a tiny Zipslack running on that machine with Fluxbox.  Certainly much faster than KDE was, but still, I don't run much on it right now.

The reason I used KDE before was, honestly, because all the installed apps were in the menu, and I didn't know how to edit Flux's.  It was also nice-looking, and I was patient.  :D

On my new system with Slack 10, I have XFce set up as the default.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: solarismka on 20 August 2004, 06:51
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.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Refalm on 20 August 2004, 19:39
Hahaha:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/?PROCESS=show&ID=20026392&AT=39163697-39020390t-10000004c (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!
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 20 August 2004, 20:37
:D

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

Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: hm_murdock on 20 August 2004, 21:45
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.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: WMD on 21 August 2004, 01:23
You could compile it.  Assuming that you start the compile script and then go on vacation.  :D

3.2 is hands-down faster than 3.1, though.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: KernelPanic on 22 August 2004, 02:31
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  (http://smile.gif)

Anyway, check out the KDE-Redhat (http://kde-redhat.sourceforge.net/) project. They will hook you up, fo shizzle!
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: Commander on 22 August 2004, 04:10
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.
Title: KDE 3.3 released
Post by: WMD on 22 August 2004, 07:56
Suse 9.1 = KDE 3.2.  KDE would get faster after that upgrade.  ;)