KDE vs GNOME

[L33F3R]

gnome does not even start on 8mb

oh - and the 'long loghin time' just click the left mouse button. There is a bug keeping around the login splash for too long. Just click left mouse button and see for yourself.

This "bug"

[kraftman]

This "bug"

I have this bug with KDE 4.3.1 :> So maybe something else related?

[pingufunkybeat]

3. KDE takes a couple of minutes to start up, Gnome takes a few seconds to start up. That's a complete deal-breaker for my system where I might only log in for two minutes.

LOL

You should have said hours. DAYS!

[RealNC]

Centuries and millennia :P

There is no real difference between KDE and Gnome login time.

[L33F3R]

i notice a few seconds. nothing special tho.

[movieman]

Actually, I just timed it: Gnome took 12 seconds to go from pressing enter after typing my password to having a usable program selection menu, KDE took 48 seconds... in both cases the desktop appeared some time before that, but I couldn't usefully interact with it. So not quite as bad as my perception, but still not good.

I'm just using the standard Ubuntu configuration for both so I have no idea whether they've configured KDE poorly, but either way it's what the average Ubuntu user will see.

KDE also takes much longer to log off, but at least there's always CTRL+ALT+Backspace.

[val-gaav]

Try disabling nepomuk , akonadi etc. you can also speed up kde start by not restoring the previous session and disabling the splash screen, and some unneeded services ... For me it starts in about 5 sec from kdm, after those adjustments.

Anyway 48 seconds from kdm to kde start is just wrong and way to long. I'm using kubuntu and even without those adjustments I'm sure the boot was quite fast, not longer then 20 sec that's for sure.

[L33F3R]

default install vs a modified KDE startup? doesn't sound fair to me. Looks like gnome wins in the boot test.

[pingufunkybeat]

Bah, if I'm not restoring a big session and don't use semantic desktop, KDE is ready in a few seconds. That's 4.3.1, with all the bells and whistles on. Sure, it's a good machine, but this hearsay "KDE took 3 years to show a menu on my computer, and GNOME saved my cat" doesn't lead to good discussions.

Anyway, Ubuntu is known for spending a lot of time making GNOME fast and good and making KDE broken. It's hardly a good platform for comparison.

Get vanilla KDE and vanilla GNOME, then compare. Cause both can be tweaked into heaven come.

[L33F3R]

Anyway, Ubuntu is known for spending a lot of time making GNOME fast and good and making KDE broken.

Primary resource please.