KDE Software Compilation 4.4 Released

[V!NCENT]

<being serious>.
What you describe here was exactly the case for 3.x series (I have not used earlier ones)... That was quite annoying I must say, but given the choice of (at that moment when I switched to linux around kde 3.2 I think) :
- Gnome ok seems simple but how can I do my job here ? Damn I cannot do what I want.
- KDE - Damn it's hard I remember I changed that option I need... now where I can find again? ... Ok at least I can do what I want once I find the damn option

See given those choices I went with KDE, in hope I will just get used to it.

Luckily in KDE4 they went with something in between of those two situations which for me is the greatest feature of new KDE series.

Lol no. Gnomes idea of minimalism is just not implementing features whilst KDE4s idea of minimalism is implementing features but reducing the amount of unnesecairy buttons and restructuring information in such a way that is more compact, but not stripped.

[Hephasteus]

I use gnome because it drops the menu down from the top instead of the bottom bar. I mean all the buttons are at the top of windows. I just like the keep the mouse at the top of the screen most of the time because it makes sense and works good.
I suspect though it won't be much longer before every environment is so customizable it won't matter at all.
But yes the organization behind all these things customizations are a pain. I hate the default icon size and always switch it from 100 percent to 66 percent size. It usually takes me an hour of fumbling to figure out how to switch it but last install i found it in 2 minutes. By making it hard to learn once you do learn and get comfortable with it you don't want to switch.

[rohcQaH]

I use gnome because it drops the menu down from the top instead of the bottom bar. I suspect though it won't be much longer before every environment is so customizable it won't matter at all.

you can just drag your panel to the top in kde 3 and 4. Completely recreating the gnome-layout (two-panel with menu at the top) is possible in both.

[molecule-eye]

you can just drag your panel to the top in kde 3 and 4. Completely recreating the gnome-layout (two-panel with menu at the top) is possible in both.

Was that even worth a reply? It's a truly sad state of affairs when there are board members exhibiting this level of stupidity.

[kraftman]

Thanks, for a moment I thought my trollbait was too obvious. Good, I'm not losing my touch!

I thought you were according to link you gave later:

http://blog.gwright.org.uk/articles/2010/02/07/why-i-wont-use-kde-4

and someone explained in one of the comments this "Konsole" comparison depends also on graphic drivers.

[Jimmy]

Someone should probably blame graphic drivers rather then DE. If I compare KDE 3.5 apps scrolling speed to Gnome apps scrolling speed, KDE 3.5 will be probably a clear winner.

With the same hardware and same driver, KDE4 (with or without composition) is slower at many drawing operations than KDE3. How is this a driver issue?

Every time someone brings up the simple fact that KDE4 is slower at many drawing operations than its predecessor or its competitors people blame the graphics stack even if it is the only constant in the observations. I don't understand this.

KDE4 uses different mechanics for drawing to the screen than KDE3 does. Somethings are faster and somethings are slower. If KDE choses to use mechanics that aren't well supported by any drivers out there, I don't see how it is anyone's fault but their own.

Konsole is an excellent example. KDE3's Konsole running under KDE4 is significantly faster than KDE4's Konsole in the same environment. Same everything at that point, except the application and framework libraries. You have to blame the newer Konsole and/or the libraries it's built on at that point. The nerve racking thing is that Konsole really didn't change in functionality or add any significant features. You can't even say it's slower because it has more features. From a end user's perspective, it's just slower for no good reason.

Having said all this, do I think KDE 4 is absolutely horrible? Not since about KDE 4.2. I do however think that there's a whole lot of room for optimization and fat trimming.

[kraftman]

With the same hardware and same driver, KDE4 (with or without composition) is slower at many drawing operations than KDE3. How is this a driver issue?

Every time someone brings up the simple fact that KDE4 is slower at many drawing operations than its predecessor or its competitors people blame the graphics stack even if it is the only constant in the observations. I don't understand this.

KDE4 uses different mechanics for drawing to the screen than KDE3 does. Somethings are faster and somethings are slower. If KDE choses to use mechanics that aren't well supported by any drivers out there, I don't see how it is anyone's fault but their own.

Konsole is an excellent example. KDE3's Konsole running under KDE4 is significantly faster than KDE4's Konsole in the same environment. Same everything at that point, except the application and framework libraries. You have to blame the newer Konsole and/or the libraries it's built on at that point. The nerve racking thing is that Konsole really didn't change in functionality or add any significant features. You can't even say it's slower because it has more features. From a end user's perspective, it's just slower for no good reason.

Having said all this, do I think KDE 4 is absolutely horrible? Not since about KDE 4.2. I do however think that there's a whole lot of room for optimization and fat trimming.

Many things suggest it's graphic drivers issue. Read nVidia forums then you won't be saying stupid things like "it's just slower for no good reason". Does KDE devs have to provide better acceleration for QT4 in some drivers (also in proprietary?). A room for optimization, but afaik graphic drivers aren't part of KDE SC.

[L33F3R]

V!NCENT not only did you miss my posts point entirly (which was about personal choice, entirly); but you are placing your beliefs as fact.

Fact. More people use gnome. It is true that numbers dont speak quality (or windows would be king, and kind of is unfortunately), But its a fact we just cant ignore.

Myth. KDE is more functional. Just because you can make one environment look like another. or make it pretty. Or do this and do that. If your desktop environment can cook pancakes or give you oral sex. Different people have different needs.

capable of serving a purpose well; "software with greater functionality"

As we can clearly see, assuming everyone has a different "purpose" (which i hope we have in the free world) then everyone has a different perspective on functionality.

KDE has a purpose, i use it. Therefore it has a purpose. Gnome has a purpose, therefore it has a purpose. So quit saying it has no purpose. Dont try and tell me what purpose something else has. Its my freedom to pick that on my own.

Im not out to attack KDE , Im running mandriva right now ffs. However, i am certainly out to attack KDE users who try to tell me why I shouldn't use gnome.

[Jimmy]

Many things suggest it's graphic drivers issue. Read nVidia forums then you won't be saying stupid things like "it's just slower for no good reason". Does KDE devs have to provide better acceleration for QT4 in some drivers (also in proprietary?). A room for optimization, but afaik graphic drivers aren't part of KDE SC.

On what hardware driver configuration is KDE4's Konsole faster or equal to KDE3's Konsole?

If it's universally slower how is it NVidia's fault? The same performance regressions exist on my ATI machine. Should I go find an Intel machine too?

[deanjo]

On what hardware driver configuration is KDE4's Konsole faster or equal to KDE3's Konsole?

If it's universally slower how is it NVidia's fault? The same performance regressions exist on my ATI machine. Should I go find an Intel machine too?

Actually Nvidia fixed it's issue with their recent drivers.