kde-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Send kde mailing list submissions to kde@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to kde-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at kde-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of kde digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Has The performance been forgotten? (Trevor Smith) 2. Re: k3b without ide-scsi (LeVA) 3. Re: k3b without ide-scsi (Dani Belz) 4. Re: Has The performance been forgotten? (Kevin Krammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:24:35 -0300 From: Trevor Smith <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Has The performance been forgotten? To: kde@xxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID: <200410080224.36007.trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On October 7, 2004 10:34 pm, canllaith@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have always found KDE under Slackware to be a great environment for older machines that have at least 256MB, as the preloading of libs make QT applications quicker to launch under KDE than GTK applications are under Gnome in my experience.
Very interesting this message should come in today. I just today got frustrated and timed some things. I was wondering if in fact Gnome apps would load significantly faster under Gnome than KDE apps under KDE. Actually I was wondering about Firefox under Gnome (which I rarely ever use) but did a few test. Here's what I found:
AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ laptop (so probably slower bus and HD than I would like to have) with 512 meg RAM running FC2 with kernel-2.6.8-1.521 and KDE 3.3.0-2.2.2.kde and whatever the latest version of Gnome I got from 'yum update' is. First number is time in seconds for first attempt at load, second and third are repeated attempts (so the app in question has just been loaded then closed). Times were measured using my runner's watch by hand. (use a fixed font to view)
KDE Gnome login to desktop | 25.72/13.98/13.69 | 29.29/15.72/16.11 kcalc | 4.51/3.11/3.85 | 9.61/3.76/3.66 gnumeric | 7.33/3.29/3.19 | 4.84/2.79/2.94 openoffice calc | 28.50/12.31/14.67 | 28.65/5.83/5.74 firefox | 5.37/1.61/1.81 | 4.98/1.82/2.08 terminal window | 2.23/1.94/1.65 | 2.01/1.14/0.98
On my system I can login to KDE slightly faster than Gnome (measuring til the time the task bar and icons are drawn and the splash screen is gone) and kcalc loads (under KDE) roughly like gnumeric does under Gnome (although kcalc seems to be dismally crappy compared to gnumeric) and firefox is roughly the same on both systems. Terminal windows (and nautilus windows compared to konqueror windows, although I didn't measure these latter two) were a bit snappier on Gnome.
The big surprise, for me, was that openoffice calc, which is a ridiculous pig under FC2 (the older OO under FC1 was VERY snappy on this laptop), actually loads in half the time under Gnome (for reloads) as it does on KDE. Weird. But it still takes forever the first time on both desktops.
So my question: if there is some way I can preload or hold in memory any libraries so that pigs like Open Office will load faster, where can I get this magic info?
I think I'll switch to gnumeric since it does all I need and loads in a quarter the time OO does (under KDE).
___________________________________________________ . Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde. Archives: http://lists.kde.org/. More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
