is GNOME faster than KDE?

Hoyeru · 03-24-2007, 05:59 AM

I am trying Kubuntu 6.06 but KDE is really slow on my Celeron 3.33 GHz 512 MB RAM. Yeah, I have tried a few of the suggestions such as prelinking and whatnot but KDE is still not much faster. Then I found out Kubuntu uses the 386 kernel for compatability issues(I don't know what it means exactly but it doesn't sound good). Anyway, my question is if Gnome is faster than KDE, is it less bloated, etc? I want to hear from people who have used both.

uv256 · 03-24-2007, 06:35 AM

From my experience.... Gnome loads much faster than KDE...

IndyGunFreak · 03-24-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoyeru

I am trying Kubuntu 6.06 but KDE is really slow on my Celeron 3.33 GHz 512 MB RAM. Yeah, I have tried a few of the suggestions such as prelinking and whatnot but KDE is still not much faster. Then I found out Kubuntu uses the 386 kernel for compatability issues(I don't know what it means exactly but it doesn't sound good). Anyway, my question is if Gnome is faster than KDE, is it less bloated, etc? I want to hear from people who have used both.

You'll want to use a 386 kernel regardless of KDE/Gnome. Note the name of the iso file you downloaded an burned(unless you ordered your disk), it will be something like, Kubuntu 6.06-desktop-i386.iso. i386 is the processor class the Kernel is designed for.

That said, my personal experience, Yes, Gnome is faster. Also, if you're gonna have to download and burn Ubuntu again, I'd just go ahead and start with the current version, 6.10.

IGF

phantom_cyph · 03-24-2007, 07:03 AM

I would check to make sure everything is OK with your computer, I have and Intel Celeron D 3.33GHz processor as well, and only 256mb of RAM. Mine loads fine. What I did however, was install Ubuntu and added the KDE packages.

Hoyeru · 03-24-2007, 11:03 AM

thanx for all the responses. to kalabanta: XP Professional flies on this machine, so it's not configuration.

aysiu · 03-24-2007, 01:04 PM

I have a machine with similar specs (not Celeron, though), and KDE and Gnome are both fast. What do you mean by "slow"? How long, for example, does it take for Konqueror to load up?

fragos · 03-24-2007, 05:51 PM

I just installed Feisty Beta on a spare partition. I configured it to be virtualy the same as my Edgy install. Nvidia, bluetooth, Wacom Graphire4 and other goodies. I've found no issues and believe it's even faster than Edgy -- purely subjective. I'll leave Edgy as my backup but doubt that I'll have to use it. As always there are lots of little changes and Feisty appears to be the best ever. IMHO I'd just go strait to Feisty.

IBall · 03-24-2007, 09:39 PM

In the past, Gnome was faster than KDE.

These days, with a reasonably fast processor and a good amount of RAM they are both very similar. If you use mostly GTK apps, then use Gnome; If you use mostly Qt apps, then use KDE, since the GTK apps tend to load faster under Gnome and Qt apps load faster under KDE.

Hoyeru: It is possibly that there is a mis-configuration with your machine that is making things run slow, like a lack of DMA or something.

--Ian

Hoyeru · 03-25-2007, 06:53 AM

after more reading it appears my ASUS board might be the problem. They work fine with Windoze but not with Linux. IRQ and other issues are to blame. some ASUS boards are even blacklisted as not to be used with Linux.

IndyGunFreak · 03-25-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoyeru

after more reading it appears my ASUS board might be the problem. They work fine with Windoze but not with Linux. IRQ and other issues are to blame. some ASUS boards are even blacklisted as not to be used with Linux.

My Asus board worked flawlessly with Linux. Where did you read this information, I'd be interested in seeing this. I've got an MSI now, and again, absolutely zero probs.

You coudl try another distro...

IGF

Hoyeru · 03-25-2007, 01:15 PM

I read it right in this
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...highlight=ASUS