KDE3 requirements ??

[Mike Diehl]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oh man, do I completely agree with what is said below.  But I have a few 
comments to add.


On Friday 05 April 2002 07:42 am, Iztok Kobal wrote:
> Timothy R Butler wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >>Suse6.4/i686/2.2.14/GLIBC-2.1.3/QT-2.3.2/XFree86-4.1.0/KDE-2.2.2.
> >
> >  That's pretty old,
>
> I disagree - are we talking M$ policy now ?

Yes!  I remember some time ago when one of my coworkers installed a very 
young version of KDE on a machine with only 32Mb of RAM.  I thought then that 
KDE was a bit "heavy" when compared to fvm and such, but I liked the look and 
feel...

So, recently, I installed KDE 1.x on a 266Mhz laptop with 64Mb.  It seemed to 
run better than Win2k and didn't crash.  But it was a little sluggish.

Upgrading to KDE 2.2.1 was a shocker!  It takes much longer to get through 
the login screen.  BTW, I'm running 2.2.1 on a 400Mhz K6 with 196Mb of ram, 
much more horsepower than the laptop and the performance isn't as crisp.  
Still, I like the look and feel and the indivitual tools are superior.  ie, 
konqueror and kmail rock!  

I still get a few crashes now and then, and my memory consumption is.... 
distressing.

Now, I'm thinking of upgrading to KDE 3.0 because I see some features I want 
and I expect more stability.  But, I'm afraid that performance will fall... 
again.  As a software developer, I understand that there is a 
feature/performance trade-off, but as a user, I want the best of both worlds. 
Is it possible to shrink KDE's footprint by extracting some of the features 
that aren't being used?  I don't know, I'm just ranting.


> I am really satisfied with how my system works right now. I am satisfied
> with the KDE2 also. I am only interested at how the KDE3 looks&feels.
> And if the Linux community stepped away (as the M$ did years ago) from
> the rule that you update/upgrade rarely and only things that are faulty
> or not satisfying enough, then it is really the wrong way as seen with
> the company already mentioned.

I think that KDE is still evolving.  So it makes sense to make rapid upgrade 
cycles.

> And it is really dissappointing to see how posting to some most visited
> maillists concerning kernel, SuSE and KDE have not resulted to find
> single man that knows what should be done to lift the system from
> kernel-2.2.x/glibc2.1 to kernel-2.4.x/glibc2.2 WITHOUT buying new distro
> and facing problems which come (and sure they do) after upgrading the
> system. 

I had the SAME problem.  I eventually had to go from RedHat 6.1 to Mandrake 
8.1.  I was happy with RH 6.1 and all of my "stuff" was working.  I am still 
trying to figure out how Mandrake chose to do a few things.....  This should 
have never been necessary.

Just my $.02.  Thanx for listening.

- -- 
Mike Diehl.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8rn3nSrJcwl1jOi4RAnPNAJ9G4m5gFPkeQ4Md5q2UNbNAEiqtpACfWgm5
23V5oH+ORYX1GoxtTBfiV2w=
=z4Fb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management:  http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.