Re: KDE Usability survey
On Thursday 13 March 2003 00:31, Nick Leverton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:28:15PM +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 21:42, Frank Van Damme wrote:
> > > Second, It may not be the design goal to run on the lowest end
> > > stuff (like a system built out of Linux, Dietlibc, TinyX and twm
> > > or something :-) ), ......
> >
> > Current KDE works pretty well on machines that are more than 3
> > years old. If anything, they'd need more -- and cheap -- memory.
> > What more do you want? Those are machines you can't even buy
> > anymore.
>
> One of Linux's "selling propositions" is that it makes better use of
> the hardware and avoids the need for expensive upgrades.
Linux != KDE
Also, see below.
> I think
> it's good that as much software as possible be made as slim and fast
> as possible. Or at least that the core framework (in this case KDE)
> be lean and fast, allowing users to install as much "bloat" as they
> want.
So, if mysteriously KDE's memory requirement overnight grew by 256MB --
would you stop using it or would you just add memory because it's well
worth it?
> That said, I run KDE3.1 here on a 200MHz 128Mb K6/2, and am generally
> reasonable satisfied with its performance as long as I don't have too
> many large applications running.
That machine is how old? 5 years? 6 years? You're very lucky that a
completely up to date desktop environment still runs usably on such a
machine. I'd find it utterly unreasonable to ask KDE developers to
accommodate even lower end machines. That doesn't make those machines
useless, of course. Just put them to a purpose that fits their age.
Michael
[No CC, please!]
--
Michael Schuerig The usual excuse for our most unspeakable
mailto:schuerig@acm.org public acts is that they are necessary.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Judith N. Shklar
Reply to: