KDE and Harware Requirements?

RAdams · 10-02-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsman

When participating in this forum I strive to remain polite, cordial, and respectful of the opinions of others, but the two statements above are false.

I run KDE on boxes that most people today would sneer at, yet KDE runs just fine.

KDE provides some fine software and just as important, provides a consistent environment in which that software runs. To any future visitors to this thread, please visit my web site as one person's testimony that KDE can indeed run on older hardware---and run just fine.

Are there hardware limits to running KDE? Yes, and as a daily KDE user I willingly agree. Based upon the hardware specs described, I suspect the OP in this thread might be frustrated with KDE, but that does not mean KDE needs a super-charged hardware to run.

If KDE is not your cup-of-tea, then I accept that decision. Each of us has our own perspective about how we want to use computers as tools and play things. But please stop circulating myths and propaganda. KDE runs just fine on older hardware. My boxes are living proof.

Well said! I wouldn't necessarily classify myself as frustrated with KDE, per se. In fact, I prefer it to every window environment save Gnome. My question was whether the machines I specified would be capable of satisfactorily running KDE. I feel I made the right choice in this circumstance, and I would have to agree with you: based on my extensive KDE experience, it works fine for me.

ciotog · 10-02-2006, 09:42 AM

A couple of points regarding XFCE:

As far as I can tell, there's no way to make the panel fill the width (or height) of the screen - the only config files for it are ~/.settings/xfce4/panel/contents.xml[.active] . No other file in the ~/.settings/xfce4 tree mentions the word "panel" (according to grep).

As for the menu, it autogenerates, unless settings have been changed to use a static menu and the autogenerate function has been disabled ( see the comments in ~/.settings/xfce4/desktop/menu.xml ). I don't know of a way to turn off menu autogeneration through the settings manager.

Personally I use WindowMaker, for one thing the ability to generate a submenu based on directory contents is wonderful. However, it's not very easy to use for someone who's only experience has been with Windows.

RAdams · 10-02-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciotog

A couple of points regarding XFCE:

As far as I can tell, there's no way to make the panel fill the width (or height) of the screen - the only config files for it are ~/.settings/xfce4/panel/contents.xml[.active] . No other file in the ~/.settings/xfce4 tree mentions the word "panel" (according to grep).

As for the menu, it autogenerates, unless settings have been changed to use a static menu and the autogenerate function has been disabled ( see the comments in ~/.settings/xfce4/desktop/menu.xml ). I don't know of a way to turn off menu autogeneration through the settings manager.

Personally I use WindowMaker, for one thing the ability to generate a submenu based on directory contents is wonderful. However, it's not very easy to use for someone who's only experience has been with Windows.

Thanks! I was hoping the panel would fill the screen... :\

Regarding the autogenerated menu, I prefer autogeneration. I'm not the type who is married to a GUI; the only time I need one is for the sake of expediting some set of tasks, or running a program which specifically requires it (such as this here thingy what browses the interweb).

I don't really get hung up on which environment, I just have little idiosyncracies which I prefer to be coddled. If the window manager doesn't coddle my idiosyncracies, I get >:O

But oh well. We all need a little disappointment. Thanks for your input. I might mess about with WindowMaker and/or Fluxbox a bit.

liquidtenmilion · 10-02-2006, 03:43 PM

XFCE isn't that much lighter when it comes down to it.

Sure, XFCE is lighter than KDE and Gnome, but XFCE still uses gtk2, and GTK2 is still a heavy library. I would recommend Windowmaker(fast, easy, configureable, pretty) or IceWM(faster, not quite as pretty) on lower end machines. They are significantly faster than XFCE.

soggycornflake · 10-09-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsman

When participating in this forum I strive to remain polite, cordial, and respectful of the opinions of others

As do most of us, but the odd jibe and occasional spot of curmudgeonliness doesn't go amiss. Sense of humour recommended, if not mandatory!

Quote:

I run KDE on boxes that most people today would sneer at, yet KDE runs just fine.

Yes, but "runs just fine" is a very subjective issue. If I have to wait more than 2 seconds for a gui to do something, it's too slow for me...

Quote:

KDE provides some fine software and just as important, provides a consistent environment in which that software runs. To any future visitors to this thread, please visit my web site as one person's testimony that KDE can indeed run on older hardware---and run just fine.

Are there hardware limits to running KDE? Yes, and as a daily KDE user I willingly agree. Based upon the hardware specs described, I suspect the OP in this thread might be frustrated with KDE, but that does not mean KDE needs a super-charged hardware to run.

If KDE is not your cup-of-tea, then I accept that decision. Each of us has our own perspective about how we want to use computers as tools and play things. But please stop circulating myths and propaganda. KDE runs just fine on older hardware. My boxes are living proof.

Indeed. People have different requirements and expectations, and KDE will be fine for some people. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to use it but then again I can't imagine why some people call brussels sprouts "food". Bleah!

bgeddy · 10-09-2006, 07:06 PM

I'm running KDE on a 300Mhz PII with 360MB Ram 500MB swap.
It runs OK but some windows leave 'trails' when it gets strained. Not too bad though - I would say it's certainly useable. Obviously i don't do too many things at once on this box..!!

XEdX

Woodsman · 10-09-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

It runs OK but some windows leave 'trails' when it gets strained.

That rings a bell. Possibly check the KDE Control Center->Desktop->Window Behavior->Moving tab. I have all of that candy disabled.

hitest · 10-09-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soggycornflake

KDE and Harware Requirements?

I don't think ANYTHING is fast enough to run KDE at an acceptable speed. My theory is that KDE codes mutates in real-time to eat whatever cpu cycles & ram you have, so it's going to knacker you no matter what. At least, that is my experience after running KDE on everything from a P150 to a 2.2GHz Athlon 64.

Okay, I agree with Woodsman. This post is a bit over-stated. My main work station is a Plll 800 IBM eServer with 384 MB RAM and it runs Slackware 11.0 and KDE 3.5.4 just fine. It doesn't go into swap.

bgeddy · 10-10-2006, 10:20 PM

:Woodsman. Tried these settings but no joy. I think maybe KDE is getting resource low and just straining ? If my behaviour is controlled by a setting (Windows trails) I would love to turn it off !!
Thanks

XEdX

Woodsman · 10-10-2006, 11:00 PM

Could be a video card issue too. Have you checked that your xorg.conf is tweaked for your video card? There are man pages that provide xorg.conf details. The man pages are based upon the video chip used in the card.

Otherwise, experiment with disabling as much of the KDE eye candy as possible. I realize eye candy is a personal thing, but fortunately for me, almost none of the eye candy is important.

My second box is a 350 MHz PII, although I benefit a smidge from a first generation AGP video card on that box. On the other hand, by primary box is a 400 MHz K6-III+ with a Diamond Stealth 3000 video card with only 4 MB of RAM. Thus both boxes respond about the same compared to each other, but KDE runs well on both. I don't have unrealistic high hopes, but I'm curious to see how updating to 11.0 and KDE 3.5.4 will impact speed and response.

bgeddy · 10-11-2006, 03:51 PM

I "think" my card is installed OK - I've been pouring over xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log. BTW - there is an error in the log :-
(WW) ATI(0): I2C bus Mach64 initialization failure.
(II) ATI(0): I2C bus "Mach64" removed.

Don't know if this is causing my non running of DRI. This is getting very complicated...Hmmm.....

Cheers
XEdX

Woodsman · 10-11-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Don't know if this is causing my non running of DRI.

I did a quick search on the web and the problem certainly seems related. Probably should start a new thread so as not to hijack this one.

RAdams · 10-11-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsman

I did a quick search on the web and the problem certainly seems related. Probably should start a new thread so as not to hijack this one.

Hijack away. My question was answered satisfactorily. But a new thread might get your more specific results.

soggycornflake · 10-17-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitest

Okay, I agree with Woodsman. This post is a bit over-stated. My main work station is a Plll 800 IBM eServer with 384 MB RAM and it runs Slackware 11.0 and KDE 3.5.4 just fine. It doesn't go into swap.

That's nice for you. KDE 1.1.2 was usable on my P150 back in 2000 but KDE 3.x is too slow on my 2.2GHz Athlon 64 with 1GB ram, so I use fvwm and windowmaker. As I said before, it's a subjective issue.