KDE slowness

mrpringle · 2009-09-30 14:09:17

I haven't used KDE in ages so I was considering switching back. When I installed KDE and found it now took 40 seconds too boot into a usable desktop as opposed to XFCE (20 seconds) I decided to remove KDE and stick with XFCE.

I just like the kde PDF reader. It renders quickly, scrolls fast. I don't understand why none of the other DE's have a good fast PDF reader. I didn't really want to install the kde libs just for okular but maybe I will. Acrobat reader needs more dependencies than okular I think (for my system).

Would kdemod be faster to boot. Boot time is a bit important to me since I'm running this on my notebook. If it was on my desktop I wouldn't care as much.

I know my post is all over the place, but if any of my problems can be addressed I will be happy.

Cheers.

KlavKalashj · 2009-09-30 15:10:19

I hope you tried it more than one time. The first time it starts it creates a lot of configuration files, after this it's waaay faster.

brendan · 2009-09-30 20:25:14

Try it more than once. Config files will offset your findings the first time. But with my netbook, I found XFCE quite alot faster.

ozar · 2009-09-30 20:53:41

There's a bug that's causing the slow KDE4 startups:

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206788

...but I don't think the fix has made it's way into the Arch packages just yet.

More about the issue here:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79139

mrpringle · 2009-09-30 23:09:38

I did restart the PC several times. Still slow. There are a few things which put me off KDE anyway. The start menu is very slow and inefficient to use, I couldn't find any network card configuration (I use netcfg under xfce, but thought KDE would come with a graphical network configuration tool).

I'll just stick with xfce because I feel comfortable with it. Even though it doesn't look anywhere near as fancy as KDE4.

brando56894 · 2009-10-01 04:44:42

You can switch to the classic kde 3.5 menu by right clicking on the k icon. It might just be that your hdd in your laptop isnt fast enough (assuming its a 5200rpm) to load kde quickly since it relies on a lot of files, also youre used to xfce which from what ive seen doesnt rely on nearly as much stuff as kde does so your used to quick load times. I have a 10,000 RPM Raptor in my desktop pc and Kdemod 4.3.1 still takes about 10-15 seconds from the time x loads to when everything is usable (i have autologin enabled).

mrpringle · 2009-10-02 15:32:35

brando56894 wrote:

You can switch to the classic kde 3.5 menu by right clicking on the k icon. It might just be that your hdd in your laptop isnt fast enough (assuming its a 5200rpm) to load kde quickly since it relies on a lot of files, also youre used to xfce which from what ive seen doesnt rely on nearly as much stuff as kde does so your used to quick load times. I have a 10,000 RPM Raptor in my desktop pc and Kdemod 4.3.1 still takes about 10-15 seconds from the time x loads to when everything is usable (i have autologin enabled).

I accidentally reported the post instead of hitting quote. Anyway, the laptop does have a 7200rpm hard disk, but I suppose kde has a lot more things to load than xfce (as you said). Even if loading time wasn't a consideration I think I prefer xfce because I'm used to it, and I know how to configure everything I need.

About the pdf reader I installed evince without gnome dependencies and it seems to be fast which is my main concern. One of my subjects averages on about 60 pages of slides per week, most of these containing formulas, vector graphics, images, etc. As much as I like xpdf it was very slow scrolling through the pages.

Vamp898 · 2009-10-02 16:45:13

mrpringle wrote:

I did restart the PC several times. Still slow. There are a few things which put me off KDE anyway. The start menu is very slow and inefficient to use, I couldn't find any network card configuration (I use netcfg under xfce, but thought KDE would come with a graphical network configuration tool).
I'll just stick with xfce because I feel comfortable with it. Even though it doesn't look anywhere near as fancy as KDE4.

Uhm what about knetworkmanager???

[vamp898@VampLap vamp898]$ yaourt -Ss knetwork
aur/knetworkmanager 0.2.2-4 (69)
    A NetworkManager front-end for kde3 and kde4, based in version 0.2.2 stable
aur/knetworkmanager-unstable 737532-1 (Out of Date) (5)
    A NetworkManager front-end for KDE
[vamp898@VampLap vamp898]$

or what about this?

aur/networkmanager-plasmoid-svn 1007572-1 (169)
    KDE4 NetworkManager plasmoid

The Startmenü can be quickly changed with a right click and than to "standard menu" or something else

Maybe you want to try GNOME. I looks a bit fancier than XFCE and is much more comfortable^^

Last edited by Vamp898 (2009-10-02 16:47:48)

ozar · 2009-10-02 22:33:35

Qt 4.5.3-1 (that just landed in Extra) fixes the bug posted above that causes the slow KDE startup.

mrpringle · 2009-10-03 00:20:23

Vamp898 wrote:

Maybe you want to try GNOME. I looks a bit fancier than XFCE and is much more comfortable^^

I think xfce is getting more user friendly (with the power manager for example), and it can look quite nice if you play around with different themes and gtk engines.
If i had to choose one of the main two DE's I would choose KDE because I like some of the apps it comes with, like amarok.

Uhm what about knetworkmanager???

I think it's odd kdenetwork is not included with KDE and even stranger it isn't in one of the standard repos.

Qt 4.5.3-1 (that just landed in Extra) fixes the bug posted above that causes the slow KDE startup.

How much of a speed increase is there?

Last edited by mrpringle (2009-10-03 00:23:45)

ozar · 2009-10-03 00:31:20

For me, the startup of KDE4 from startx [ENTER] to a complete desktop was 22.5 seconds, but after the new Qt upgrade, it dropped to 5 seconds.

mrpringle · 2009-10-03 00:49:49

ozar wrote:

For me, the startup of KDE4 from startx [ENTER] to a complete desktop was 22.5 seconds, but after the new Qt upgrade, it dropped to 5 seconds.

That's a significant difference. Now I'm undecided. I just spent all that time the other day install kde and then removing it.

I think because it has a lot more processes and has lots of eye candy it will drain the battery faster than xfce though.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-30 14:09:17

KDE slowness

#2 2009-09-30 15:10:19

Re: KDE slowness

#3 2009-09-30 20:25:14

Re: KDE slowness

#4 2009-09-30 20:53:41

Re: KDE slowness

#5 2009-09-30 23:09:38

Re: KDE slowness

#6 2009-10-01 04:44:42

Re: KDE slowness

#7 2009-10-02 15:32:35

Re: KDE slowness

#8 2009-10-02 16:45:13

Re: KDE slowness

#9 2009-10-02 22:33:35

Re: KDE slowness

#10 2009-10-03 00:20:23

Re: KDE slowness

#11 2009-10-03 00:31:20

Re: KDE slowness

#12 2009-10-03 00:49:49

Re: KDE slowness

Board footer