Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

KDE 4 Uses 40% Less Memory Than 3 Despite Eye-Candy

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the optimization-in-action dept.

KDE 566

An anonymous reader writes "Pro-Linux reports that KDE 4, scheduled to be released in January 2008, consumes almost 40% less memory than KDE 3.5, despite the fact that version 4 of the Free and Open Source desktop system includes a composited window manager and a revamped menu and applet interface. KDE developer Will Stephenson showcased KDE 4's 3D eye-candy on a 256Mb laptop with 1Ghz CPU and run-of-the-mill integrated graphics, pointing out that mini-optimizations haven't even yet been started." Update: 12/14 22:40 GMT by Z : Or, not so much. An anonymous reader writes "The author of the original KDE 3.5 vs KDE 4.0 memory comparison has come out with a more accurate benchmark. In reality, KDE 4.0 uses 110 MB more memory than KDE 3.5.8.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pirst fost? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692090)


40% more rimming (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692138)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Please post a new story. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21693020)

I've read this one like 10 times already, geez.

Wow. (5, Funny)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692122)

Someone call Bill Gates and tell him to read this.

Unbloating? (4, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692156)

Isn't that communist or something?

Re:Unbloating? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692212)

No kidding, you don't read about this type of upgrade very often. As a cheapskate, I think this is awesome. I'll not be holding my breath for Microsoft to announce XP's new reduced memory requirements (or - dare I say it - Apple about OSX).

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692196)

We've been showing him the same thing with Mac OS X since 2001, as well, but he doesn't seem to be listening.

Love, Steve

Re:Wow. (3, Funny)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692208)

Someone call Bill Gates and tell him to read this.
It's 256 MB, not 640 K...

Re:Wow. (1)

R15I23D05D14Y (1127061) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692270)

It make you wonder what Vista is doing with all the resources it needs. I seriously believe it all goes into the DRM :(

Re:Wow. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692356)

Try backwards compatabiltiy and then on top of that inspection and maintaining of it's own integrity.

Re:Wow. (0, Troll)

WozNZ (1079087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692472)

errrrr. Backwards compatibility. So by this you imply that its impossible to run old KDE apps on the new interface. Maintin its own integrity. So by this you mean that KDE is not stable and fails after a while of use. Sorry, you appear to be talking rubbish. Vista is a slow resource hog because that is how it was designed. Its just poor crap code.

Re:Wow. (1)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692996)

He's not implying anything of the sort. OP said 'Vista is slow 'cause of DRM', AC opined that it was due to backwards compatibility and 'maintaining integrity', that I took to mean 'making sure it's not hacked'.

I've been %100 *nix for 10+ years, so I have zero reason to defend MS. But even I can see that a correction of the statement 'Vi$ta is teh suxors for DRM' might be wrong. And Vista might be crap code, but I really doubt MS set out to design a resource hog.

Re:Wow. (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692892)

If you really think that, you're insane. It goes to a bunch of shit but unless you're using a restricted media file none of it will be DRM. I should write a better response but I'm lazy so oh well :)

To compare with GNOME... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692142)

GNOME running WITHOUT Compiz requires a good 256MB.

That's WITHOUT the eyecandy.

Good job KDE! It's yet another reason to stop using GNOME, if all the Microsoft pandering wasn't enough.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692214)

Parent is simple, but insightful.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (0)

L4m3rthanyou (1015323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692690)

It's a matter of preference, really. A lot of people (especially non-geek types) prefer a more full-featured OS. Others prefer something lighter.

It's nice to have a choice. :)

Re:To compare with GNOME... (2, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692792)

I'm not sure that Gnome is more fully featured than KDE... If anything KDE seems to have (with 3.5.1 at any rate) far more capabilities than any other DE that I have used (I was looking at E17 and XFCE about 5 months back), it is nice that those bells and whistles are easily tucked away to give the end user a clean and uncomplicated experience, yet sufficiently accessible if you find you need them.

In this case the reduction in memory footprint really does seem to be down to better code / new and better technology than simply stripping out functionality and tweaking things so that they appear better. I used to hate doing windows installs because the install wizard would always point out that W95/W98/W2k/WXP was faster, more secure and more capable than its predecessors, something that was almost never true, as such I was concerned that the 'hype' about KDE4 being better, faster, lighter etc.. was just a ploy by KDE fans and marketeers, however for once it seems I can put mu scepticism away and look forward to the day KDE4 becomes available for Debian Stable.... :)

Re:To compare with GNOME... (1)

fsmunoz (267297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692928)

All of what you say is true, KDE is all that and more and I'm not even a DE convert, prefering more minimalistic solutions. However, there is something about the look of KDE that just never felt right. Not sure if the colours, the icons, the combination of it, but GNOME comes through as a cleaner environment, when it is not. Perhaps in KDE4 this will change - or not, since this might be solely my perception of it and tastes differ.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (2, Interesting)

WhodoVoodoo (319477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692984)

I agree. There was always something about KDE that I just disliked, which is why I always used gnome. When this drops I'll probably take a moment to check it out, plus nautilus was never too great, especially since nobody ever paid attention to my bug reports (in file-roller for example, though they sorta fixed the problem by totally removing drag-out functionality...)

I've always been pretty jealous of the kio-slave system, too.

xfce. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692240)

I'm not sure why anyone would run KDE or GNOME. The are both clunky.

Re:xfce. (2, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692406)

Indeed. XFCE is nifty. Having switched to it, I don't think I'm missing anything.


Re:xfce. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692578)

bash FTW !!!!!!

bash? pffft... (5, Funny)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692634)

WAY too much bloat for features most never use. Real men use dash (if you *must* have a program that's a shell and only a shell) or if you don't mind something a bit more versatile to save disk space at potentially the risk of slightly higher memory consumption when all you have is a shell, you use a symlink to busybox for your shell. But not with that glibc cruft mind you, uClibc is the only path to efficiency.

Also, you don't use init, you have the kernel run the aforementioned shell directly instead. Who needs all the cruft of startup services and a well set up tty, after all.

4...3....2......1....... (5, Funny)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692686)

just to speed things up a bit:
  • The GNOME devs are interface nazis
  • KDE has intolerable configuration menus and is ugly
  • XFCE has no functionality
  • Other window managers are for freaks and deviants
  • Except TWM. Bow before the TWM gods!!!!!!!

CLI FTW!!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21693100)

What!? Whatever happened to the "GUIs are for infants and grandmas. if you can't do it on the command line you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer in the first place" flame?

It's a sad day in Linuxland. What became of the holier than thou, I program in assembly, certifiable *nix prick?

Oh, and don't forget, "Desktop environment x is so bloated."

Re:To compare with GNOME... (3, Interesting)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692544)

Good job KDE! It's yet another reason to stop using GNOME, if all the Microsoft pandering wasn't enough.
The very best way to pander to Microsoft is to make your systems look and feel completely different from theirs, and to overload the interface with configuration options and a cluttered interface. That way, you manage to alienate any flip-floppers, and strengthen the hardcore geek market, which MS accepts they will never win back. MS wins because no-one leaves their platform, the competitor survives on a niche market. GNOME is probably Microsoft's worst nightmare right about now.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (3, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692702)

Or to completely underload it, as in Ion []
Summary of Ion features

* Tiled workspaces with tabbed frames, as discussed above.
* Designed to be primarily used from the keyboard.
* Fully documented configuration and scripting interface on top of the lightweight Lua extension language.
* Modular design. The main binary implements only basic window manager functionality. Additional modules implement extra features and window management policies.
* The query module implements a line editor similar to mini buffers in many text editors. It is used to implement many different queries with tab-completion support: show manual page, run program, open SSH session, view file, goto named client window or workspace, etc. Menus are also displayed as queries.
* A statusbar that adapts to the tilings, taking only the space it really needs, modulo constraints of the layout. The statusbar can also be configured to swallow other (small) windows, and does so automatically for Window Maker protocol dockapps, and KDE-protocol system tray icons.
* Full screen client windows are seen as workspaces on their own. It is possible to switch to a normal workspace while keeping several client windows in full screen state and also switch clients that do not themselves support full screen mode to this state.
* The scratchpad module provides a conveniently toggleable area for random tasks, akin to the consoles of many FPS games.
* To run those particularly badly behaving programs, Ion also supports floating windows of the PWM flavour. These can be had as separate workspaces without an underlying tiling, or floating on top of a tiling. Tiled windows can be detached to float, and reattached.
* It is not a project of the self-proclaimed "free" or open-source software movement, and does not suffer from popular fads among it, such as Xft/fontconfig and autoconf.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692770)

Well by that "logic," we should be recomending fluxbox.

(I love fluxbox. It's my WM is kde ever fails but I just don't buy that more configuration options drives people back to windows. It's not like you have to use those options.)

Re:To compare with GNOME... (3, Insightful)

visualight (468005) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693104)

Are you kidding? It took me a minute to figure out what you're saying, because Gnome does in fact look "completely different" from XP, yet the Gnome camp likes to point to KDE and say "Clutter!". The "Gnome is Microsofts worst nightmare" clears things up, but man are you wrong. Users coming from Windows are Attracted to KDE, and Repulsed by Gnome, because Gnome looks completely different from XP and doesn't have any configuration options (clutter).

In other words, Bill loves Gnome.

Maybe that's why there's so many KDE users when Gnome comes as default on damn near everything.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (1)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692558)

GNOME for me requires only 128MB of ram at idle. I tested it on a machine with 256 megs of ram and 128MB of memory was being used at idle and only 32MB of swap was being used. *shrugs*

Re:To compare with GNOME... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692628)

GNOME by itself is essentially just a taskbar, an application menu, and the icons placed on the desktop. Why the hell does that require 128 MB of RAM?

The GNOME desktop by itself is really not much more advanced that what Microsoft put out with Windows 95. And that could run reasonably well on a system with on 8 MB of RAM.

Hell, I remember using CDE on an HP workstation that had 2 MB of RAM! And I actually shared that workstation with two other grad students who were also running CDE at the same time in their X sessions.

GNOME has no excuse for using anything more than 20 MB of RAM. And even that's on the very high end. Realistically, they shouldn't need more than 5 to 10 MB.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (4, Informative)

Elladan (17598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692898)

Keep in mind that even basic modern graphics wastes more memory than that. That background image you have on your 1600x1200 desktop? 5.4 megs. Need a few composite buffers? 5.4 megs each.

Don't have a background? Just the frame buffer to activate that graphics mode itself is 5.4 megs, regardless of what you put on it.

Just to keep things in perspective here. That Commodore 64 you had ran nicely in 64k of ram, but it also only had 320x200 graphics (160x200 in 4-color mode). :-)

KDE also has the advantage of (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692730)

being ugly as fuck.

I still like gnome but... (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692970)

Yeah, I've been using KDE for a while now. Almost forgot that I'm in it sometimes. I hate the quirkiness but there is a lot more functionality than gnome. I still want to use gnome as a primary but I've gotten used to KDE so much it's kind of annoying. The last thing is that KDE does put up faster than gnome. It's more stable and refined than it used to be a couple of years ago. I've had less app crashes overall and like I said before, I like gnome but KDE is starting to creep up into my primary desktop.

Re:To compare with GNOME... (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692990)

Well that's not what I have found while running Gnome with Compiz on a P4 2.4ghz laptop with 256MB of RAM and an ATI 7500. The thing is plenty responsive and always has free memory, if I don't fun Firefox, but that's another issue. However it's great news that KDE4 is much lighter than it was I can't wait to try it out.

Now if only... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692148)

...KDE developers had some style. Has anyone looked at the hideous new theme? It looks like a bad Vista rip off. The new panel is freakishly large but is complimented really tiny icons.

Re:Now if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692210)

yeah, i agree. all the kde4 screenshots really look like shit. i hope it can be configured to look better :S

Re:Now if only... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692296)

how the fuck is that a troll, did you look at the screenshot? it looks like hairy man-ass

Re:Now if only... (2, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692640)

No, seriously, I was curious how it was shaping up, design-wise, and I check out the site and find stuff like this: []

And this: []

Colours, fonts, and icons are all over the place. Insane and useless borders and gradients cluttering up the interface, and an overall lack of clarity of any kind. It's like a big joke.

I mean, just look at that krunner screenshot again. What is that thing? Black, white, black, white, then suddenly grey and shaded and colourful icons, and fonts right out of a VGA BIOS.

Re:Now if only... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692796)

It just shows the varity of user tastes there are. I didn't look at the dolphin screenshot, but the krunner one had a sharp looking desktop.

Re:Now if only... (2, Informative)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692846)

It's called a theme. You can change the theme layout to anything you want. I do agree with you though, that is one very ugly theme.

Nice (4, Insightful)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692166)

Between this and Miguel de Icaza, it looks like I'll finally be switching to KDE.

Re:Nice (2, Insightful)

kusanagi374 (776658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692254)

Absolutely. Either GNOME catches up or Kubuntu 8.10 will become mainstream Ubuntu.

Re:Nice (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692322)

You're that upset that Miguel left the GNOME project half a decade ago? He's not working on KDE...

Re:Nice (1)

darkonz (1202992) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692636)

He might be refering to Miguel de Icaza from a Mono perspective. For me, the 1.2.6 release of Mono and now this release of KDE are quite the motivation to finally move to linux for my regular day to day computer use. Only reason to leave the Win partition now is for the games. D.

less memory! (4, Funny)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692172)

Now I can just leave my extra few gigs of ram nice an empty, they need a rest! Once we get it down to 640k we can move back to dos.

Re:less memory! (3, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692264)

I don't use KDE, but I use fluxbox so I can use my gigs of ram for actual applications. Until memory is literally free, all you "but memory is so cheap" people can kiss my ass.

Re:less memory! (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692852)

True, but I must admit that for those times that I actually do feel like transparency (and yes, sometimes I feel like transparency, using Mod4 v to toggle it), the window managers with integrated compositing make me slightly jealous; xcompmgr sucks ass. I know that there are other things to work on, now that Flux has gone 1.0, but basic use of Composite for transparency and simple eyecandy shouldn't be too hard for the devs to eventually address. They can leave in forced pseudo-transparency as a run-time option/fallback, and they can even make compiling in support for Composite optional for all I care, but the window manager needs to be the controlling entity; it is far too easy to expose race-type bugs with a compositing manager separate from the window manager.

[reads ChangeLog from trunk]

Oh... it looks like they've put it in there already.

Re:less memory! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692498)

The "unused" RAM won't be nice and empty. It'll be used as the system cache to store file data etc. that then can be accessed very quickly. Modern operating systems do not waste RAM by leaving it unused.

Re:less memory! (1)

Warbothong (905464) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692734)

And you can rest assured that your electricity bill will be worth it for looking at your shiny plasma-drawn analogue clock. As for me, I'm going to use my memory to run some PROGRAMS, since it is no longer being taken up by what is effectively a button to let me launch and switch between programs (a desktop environment).

Just tried (3, Interesting)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692192)

I just downloaded and ran the Debian live version using KDE4 in vBox. It was pretty. However, I couldn't figure out how to disable the "Lancelot" applet thing, which was annoying since anytime the mouse cursor got near it, it'd launch a 1/4-screen-covering window with lists of recent applications, documents, etc. Couldn't even right-click on it to disable.

      Still, covering 1/4 of the screen sure didn't take much memory!

Re:Just tried (2, Informative)

tagx (1202976) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692250)

Lancelot should not even be installed by default. Try removing ~/.kde/share/config/plasma*

Re:Just tried (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692740)

Still, covering 1/4 of the screen sure didn't take much memory!

Speaking of wasted space and distractions, and not to be trollish, but I've always wondered why it is that KDE and Gnome insist on using large-to-oversized-to-supersized icons for everything, KDE being notable in that it traditionally distinguishes itself with icons of brighter colors, in wilder designs, and offers greater customisability?

Seems to me that the term eye-candy, while often used in a disparaging fashion, should refer to a certain kewl aesthetic, rather than literal candy of the M&M variety. It's almost the inverse of a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy episode -- instead of getting a great design from three flaming queers, you get a flaming queer design from a bunch of straight guys. Well, maybe not that bad, but still.

I mean, really, do people really need toolbars that takes up a 1/3 of the space of an application window? Is the boredom threshold so low that everything has to be decorated with bright colours, or is it that people find it hard to to hit things with their mouse? Sure, both KDE and Gnome are better than Windows, but by the time you've customised things to be less ... well, goofy, you might as well have installed something like Fluxbox or go back to using nothing but xterms, learning to do without the more subtle but useful effects available or being developed elsewhere.

Re:Just tried (2, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693042)

It might sound lame, but this is really the major stumbling block I have with adopting Linux as my desktop OS.

I hate, with a passion, the default massive gumby sized icons and toolbars and everything that appear to be the norm in most Linux VMs. I don't run in 1600x1200 so I can waste half my desktop space with huge icons.

Re:Just tried (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693076)

Seems to me that the term eye-candy, while often used in a disparaging fashion, should refer to a certain kewl aesthetic, rather than literal candy of the M&M variety.
Almond Joy's got nuts.
Mounds don't.

Re:Just tried (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693078)

It's almost the inverse of a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy episode -- instead of getting a great design from three flaming queers, you get a flaming queer design from a bunch of straight guys. Well, maybe not that bad, but still.
Hmmm. Do you think we could convince Carson, Thom, Jai, Kyan and Ted to join the KDE project?

I'm only half joking. There ARE good designers out there, gay or otherwise, so why couldn't a professional design team pull a decent looking desktop together? Not a massively market researched project that everyone accepts but nobody really loves, but something genuinely stylish. Make KDE 4 the Alfa Romeo to Gnome's Camaro. Dammit, where are the Italians when you need them?!

Re:Just tried (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693098)

I like big icons - they're easier to see, and easier to click. I like pretty icons - when I'm staring at my screen for hours, they don't look ugly and drab and I can pick them out easily. There is a simple (obvious?) reason for making the user experience aesthetically pleasing: people like attractive things more. And are you really serious about going to xterms? The whole point of having a desktop is so that you don't need to use the command-line, and instead can use a paradigm that is a little more like the natural world. I think that shows you're not the normal computer user already.

Besides, the size is customizable by the user, so if you really want tiny icons then go ahead. Most people prefer them to be larger, hence the default.

Ohhhh (1)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692222)

This is going to be interesting to see go down... what will Microsoft's response be??

Re:Ohhhh (2, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692310)

This is going to be interesting to see go down... what will Microsoft's response be??

You've already heard Microsoft's entire planned response (i.e. nothing).

If Microsoft were cornered on the question, their response would be "RAM is cheap and anything other than our software is crap anyway".

Re:Ohhhh (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692612)

If Microsoft were cornered on the question, their response would be "RAM is cheap and anything other than our software is crap anyway".

Somehow the words "anything other than" made their way into the response.

Re:Ohhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692830)

that's a bug in their new office sweet it just keeps replacing overpriced with anything other than.

How about sweet bugger all? (1, Interesting)

spoco2 (322835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692828)

Really, Microsoft really couldn't give a flying crap.

Ask anyone other than your core geek friends about this and they'll say "Wuh?"

No-one cares outside of geekdom, really they don't.

And it doesn't help that all the screenshots I'm seeing of this are of an interface that really does look pretty average.

You give this news far to much import compared to what it actually has.

Re:Ohhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692978)

With KDE 4 being based on latest QT libraries, and those libraries being able to be compiled for Windows, so technically KDE4 can also be compiled for Windows, what I would like to see is:

Does KDE4 offer memory savings when used instead of Windows Explorer?

Well (5, Informative)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692226)

The laptop was recent, but he limited the memory use and throttled down the CPU to 1GHz. So it still had fancy instructions and a much bigger cache, bus, etc.

Re:Well (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692324)

Yes, but there was no attempt to hide that. And it is a development built with all the debug code in there. So it will be slower and needs more memory than the final release.

Also notice that the guy is preparing a comparison with an older machine.

Re:Well (0, Offtopic)

thouth (815259) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692510)

Compiz shifts most of the work for the window manager to the graphics card from the CPU, which probably explains why it got such good performance. Perhaps he should limit his graphics card too and see if he gets such good results before we all start championing how great KDE 4.0 is.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692696)

Makes no difference to memory usage though. In fact, Compiz uses considerably more memory than a non-composited desktop, especially with integrated graphics.

Re:Well (5, Informative)

JonLatane (750195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692868)

  1. There's no need for Compiz on KDE4; KWin supports composited window management built-in, and that's what he was using.
  2. The computer has Intel integrated graphics, you don't get much lower than that.

Re:Well (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693054)

The computer has Intel integrated graphics, you don't get much lower than that.
For 3D? Try Matrox... []

Sweet! (-1, Troll)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692230)

A non-functioning "release-candidate" uses 40% less memory than it's predecessor. Impressive.

I'm going to announce "Super-duper Desktop 8.0 RC3" which is nothing but a blank screen, but it's so efficient with memory!

Re:Sweet! (1)

noamsml (868075) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692260)

Um, the KDE4 release candidate is a fully functional desktop environment.

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692328)

Well...all the major components are there, but I'd hardly call it "fully functional." It's an incomplete, buggy mess. And I say this as a huge KDE fan and KDE4 evangelist. But let's be serious, it won't really be ready until 4.1, probably around mid-2008.

Re:Sweet! (2, Informative)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692292)

A RC is not non-functioning. It works. As you could have seen from the article.

However it is slower and bigger in the version demonstated, since a lot of debug code is in there.

MS is just looking more and more incompetent all the time.

Re:Sweet! (1)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692488)

A release candidate is a "candidate for release" and, barring whatever bugs users find, could be released as it is.

Thus, I would sure hope their RC does not contain any debug code.

Re:Sweet! (1)

erayd (1131355) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692854)

Not sure about KDE specifically, but for a project of this scale the sensible thing to do would be to enable/disable full debugging at compile time. That way those who want debugging get debugging, and those who don't get a lean mean KDE machine, both from exactly the same source. Assuming KDE does this, what is wrong with having debugging code in the RC source? Hell, it even makes sense to leave it in the final release - just disabled by default.

Re:Sweet! (2, Insightful)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692886)

MS is just looking more and more incompetent all the time.
You're saying Microsoft is incompetent, but the KDE team just shaved layers of bloat off of the core code and did more with it in 40% less memory? It's not like we should be patting them on the back for fixing their own code.

Re:Sweet! (2, Insightful)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692312)

A non-functioning "release-candidate" uses 40% less memory than it's predecessor. Impressive.

If it's a release candidate, it's functioning.

Re:Sweet! (1)

Luke Dawson (956412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692822)

Ah, the second time I've said this today: a release candidate is JUST THAT: A FUCKING CANDIDATE FOR RELEASE.

They are not non-functioning. They are feature complete. Release candidates become releases. Sure, they're not perfect but they're supposed to be basically "we think this is ready for production use, but we're just giving it one last test to be sure".

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692880)

Sure, they're not perfect but they're supposed to be basically "we think this is ready for production use, but we're just giving it one last test to be sure".

Have you tried it? If this is kde4, then kde4 sucks ass, is full of bugs, and looks like crap.

Shows what is possible.... (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692242)

... with careful work. And a primary focus on excellence, instead of making money. And people that do care about their product.

Re:Shows what is possible.... (4, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692304)

Uh... if you saw the number of bugs currently open in this "release candidate" (and I use the term loosely) you might be a little more realistic and less idealistic. I use KDE exclusively, but I'm holding off a big permanent jump until this gets A LOT more polish. One problem with OSS is that there's plenty of work that needs to get done that isn't "fun" and people don't like to do the stuff that isn't "fun" for free. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it's not important.

Re:Shows what is possible.... (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692358)

It is a demonstration. Bug fixing will have little impact on speed.

Come to think of it, I use fvwm2, which is stable, fast, small and gives me as many virtual desktops as I like and they are next to each other. (I am not happy with less than 6 and currently use 9.)
I never understood the appeal of these MS-like window managers. Fortunately pretty much everything works with others too, including most KDE applications.

Re:Shows what is possible.... (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692476)

I don't think this is really an issue with KDE 4 or OSS, at least not to the exclusion of other development models.

Remember when Windows 2000 was a 1.0 product? How about the first release of Windows XP? The first release of KDE 3? I'm a Mac user at work, working at a company that has over 4000 Mac users, a good number of which upgraded to Leopard before the ink was even dry on the packaging. The next day, there were lots of reports of bugs on our internal Mac mailing list. Leopard fixes some bugs from Tiger, of course, but it also adds so many new features that I consider it to be more or less a 1.0 product.

No surprise, then, that a release candidate for a 1.0 product that's been in development for a long time should have a lot of bugs open. And now, I won't be upgrading my Kubuntu boxes to KDE 4 right away, either :)

Re:Shows what is possible.... (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692748)

How is excellence orthogonal to making money? It seems the only way you define 'excellence' is -- works on hardware that's underpowered compared to the industry baseline. By that criterion, QNX -- which is for-profit -- won the efficiency sweepstakes long ago, when they bundled a GUI onto a 3.5 inch floppy. Or Adobe (for-profit too, even though Flash player is free), which fits a very rich runtime (including HD video in the betas) into a 1MB download.

Open source projects are often free to make their own decisions regarding hardware support, and often they can support older hardware because they have no commercial pressure (working as they are for 'free', i.e., being subsidised by some other entity, perhaps their employer or university or even parents). But every software project, including open source ones, makes decisions about tradeoffs like hw support and programmer productivity. The fact that KDE's devs saw it fit to not submit to bloat tells me that they figured that they found that they traded off efficiency for productivity, probably because they felt their user base values it more. To conflate engineering tradeoffs with your ideas of 'excellence' is very misguided thinking.

New Headline: (3, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692340)

"KDE 3.5 Was A Major Memory Hog"

Re:New Headline: (4, Interesting)

aminorex (141494) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692478)

That would be wrong, though. A basic KDE 3.5 desktop environment uses mid-way between what a Gnome 2.14 and an XFCE 4.2.2 will use. This suggests that a 4.0 desktop may consume less than XFCE does now.

Re:New Headline: (1)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692678)

I wouldn't say that invalidates the headline. Rather, Gnome is an even BIGGER hog.

Re:New Headline: (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692918)

Probably insecure. And buggy, too. In fact, it was major bloatware. Good thing we got it right this time.

256mb? (4, Funny)

TOI_0x00 (1088153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692450)

GEOS only uses 128kb and that is including eye candy, mind you 640*200 resolution.

Re:256mb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692862)

Mmmmm, geos/geoworks 2

Both sets of legal copies had floppies die.

Re:256mb? (1)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692870)

Its scary when you realise that the PDA in your pocket (or rather my pocket) is so ridiculously more capable than any of the computers etc.. that I used up until about 1995, yet the default OS's let you do less in terms of productivity than what you could do half of that kit (I now run Gentoo on it so theproblem is resolved, but still!..).

Re:256mb? (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692974)

Except for storage space, my iPaq matched or exceeded my family's second computer but couldn't do most of the things the computer could. I've always found that to be confusing, too.

A bell ringed somewhere.... (1)

elmaxxgt (980095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692514)

A geek just earned his pocket protector :')

IceWM is still the best (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692646)

Good news, though I would think that even KDE4 will run better with IceWM as memory manager.

Re:IceWM is still the best (1)

aminorex (141494) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692778)

I think you may have hit upon a novel concept: A desktop memory manager. Click-to-swap? Cut-and-paste garbage collection? Call a patent attorney!

Now someday in the future... (0, Flamebait)

gowakuwa (1199733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21692706)

Someone will ditch KDE, GNOME and X altogether and write a real GUI for UNIX-like OSes. Sorry, I was daydreaming. Thank you developers for taking this resource hog from fugly to just fat and ugly.

ressourcenhungriger (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21692776)

"The fact that a new version of an application does not always ressourcenhungriger must prove the KDE project with the next generation of the environment."

I think I just found my new word-of-the-week

Wow it runs well on a throttled Core2, (0, Flamebait)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693088)

Too bad it doesn't look good. Seriously, KDE 4 looks like the retard offspring of Vista and OS X. Look [] at this and tell me I'm wrong. [] I could not even imagine using KDE4 at the default appearances. Not even the search box has a nice appearance [] and why is the battery "widget" so large?

Re:Wow it runs well on a throttled Core2, (3, Insightful)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21693092)

Too bad it doesn't look good.
KDE4's appearance hasn't been even finalized yet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?