Krita on Windows

[Dwain Alford]

On 2/28/2015 3:59 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Gals & Guys...
>
> In the past week, we've seen a bunch of reports about Krita being slow 
> on Windows. I have no doubt that on the reporters' systems Krita _was_ 
> slow. And that's something I really want to investigate.
>
> However: that doesn't mean that Krita on Windows is in general slower, 
> laggier, or worse than Krita on Linux. Krita on Windows is not 
> experimental. That's just not fair on all the effort I and Stuart and 
> others have put into Krita on Windows. Windows being secondary is 
> something we're accustomed to thinking and then to expressing -- oh, 
> if you want to have the best experience, use Krita on Linux. That's 
> where it comes form, that's where it belongs, that's where you need to 
> go for the best experience.
>
> Honestly, that's _bunk_. Windows has got its limitations, but using my 
> Cintiq, I prefer using Krita on Windows above using it on Gnome. I 
> cannot use Krita on KDE, with the Cintiq. Better use Linux is 
> misinformation that we shouldn't spread around.
>
> The problem is that Windows is not one, big, monolithic platform, it's 
> a hugely variable landscape, and every system is significantly 
> different from other systems, something which the users don't 
> appreciate. Also, there are so bloody many Windows systems that it 
> dwarves everything we know in the Linux world. A problem a half 
> percent of a million experiences is going to mean a heck of a lot of 
> bug reports. (And I love everyone who reports the issues!)
>
> I've had this experience before, and with the 2.9 release, it's 
> hitting us in the face again: supporting Windows properly is 
> _impossible_ for a small team like we are. Not that I'm not going to try.
>
> But it's still not _true_ that Krita on Windows is in all cases worse 
> than Krita on Linux, is certain to be slower, laggier, not as good, 
> just use Linux instead and so on. We need to get rid of that meme! 
> Let's never give that as an answer to a windows user with problems!
>
> Where there are problems that I can identify, I want to fix them. I 
> take all reports really seriously. But for our collective sanity it's 
> immensely important to realize that there will always be reports of 
> problems with Krita on Windows, and they will _always_ be phrased as 
> "all other apps run fine, only Krita exhibits undesirable behaviour X, 
> so Krita is totally broken." That's just, like taxes, a fact of 
> live... Just don't echo that back at our Windows users with problems.
>
> Boudewijn
> _______________________________________________
> Krita mailing list
> kimageshop at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop
hello,
there is somewhat of an issue with ktita being slow on windows. there 
was a post in the forums that i have not replied to, but it has to do 
with solid state drives. here is the post and what i discovered with 
regards to linux, and could be a problem on windows.

POST:

In reply to Krita having response time issues on a solid state drive, I 
recently came across a possible explanation from the book, “How Linux 
Works, What Every Superuser Should Know” by Brian Ward:

“Storage devices with no moving parts, such as solid-state disks (SSDs), 
are radically different from spinning disks in terms of their access 
characteristics. For these, random access is not a problem because 
there’s no head to sweep across a platter, but certain factors affect 
performance.

One of the most significant factors affecting the performance of SSDs is 
partition alignment. When you read data from an SSD, you read it in 
chunks -- typically 4096 bytes at a time -- and the read must begin at a 
multiple of that same size. So if your partition and its data do not lie 
on a 4096-byte boundary, you may have to do two reads instead of one for 
small, common operations, such as reading the contents of a directory.

. . . However, if you’re curious about where your partitions begin and 
just want to make sure that they begin on a boundary, you can easily 
find this information by looking in /sys/block. Here’s an example for a 
partition /dev/sdf2:

     $ cat /sys/block/sdf/sdf2/start
     1953126

This partition starts at 1,953,126 bytes from the beginning of the disk. 
Because this is not a multiple of 4,096, the partition would not be 
attaining optimal performance if it were on SSD.”

HTH.

Cheers,
Dwain