# KDE 4 : The Lightest Desktop Yet ?



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

*KDE 4 : The Lightest Desktop Yet ?
 My Experience with KDE 4.0.x 
*​ 
People must be thinking that I've has gone mad ? But read and you will get everything . But before that here is a short preview of KDE and its 4.x version..

KDE one of the widely used Unix Desktop Environment [DE]. KDE and Gnome are the most advanced DE .. KDE has been praised for its intuitive interface and useful applications.. KDE recently announced the availability of its next Gen DE I.e. KDE 4.x .. KDE 4.x created a lot of sensation in the Open Source World ..Though initial reviews poured in mixed results..Few were impressed and few trashed it. My initial experience with KDE 4 was with its Alpha version. I downloaded the Kubuntu CD ISO and used it, and initially I said what a crap. Well whether its KDE 4 or KDE 3.x Kubuntu always deliver pathetic features and results.. But since it was a developing version I was still satisfied. After that I continue to use KDE 3.5.x/Gnome 2.2x .. KDE 4 finally reached the stable stage with whole new code base, QT4 ,Plasma Desktop, Phonon Sound API, Oxygen Icon and lots more and new Applications..

*www.imgx.org/files/19324_4utxi/KDE%20Thumb.png

*www.imgx.org/files/19313_dvbu3/Memory%20Usage%20Chart.png

*Memory Usage of KDE 4.0.x, KDE 3.5.9, Gnome 2.22.1 and Ubuntu Gnome 2.22.0*
Data taken from Screenshot Follow the Link Below


Check rest of the post ;  *www.techenclave.com/open-source/kde-4-the-lightest-desktop-yet-114725.html
*Please Digg the News Here  : Digg - KDE 4 : The Lightest Desktop Yet ?* 

I cannot post the whole post here due to Image retriction..​


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Darky one million dollar question: Would you use it (KDE 4) for your day to day usage ?
Good work on the article as always


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

I have posted the answer of your question.. I guess you haven't finished reading the whole article yet ?


----------



## ray|raven (Jul 10, 2008)

Could you compare it with Xfce too please?


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Dark Star said:


> I have posted the answer of your question.. I guess you haven't finished reading the whole article yet ?



Aah..I see..You added that part after my comment


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

Naa .. I added the Stability part but the Desktop use part was already there 



ray|raven said:


> Could you compare it with Xfce too please?



Will do that but its useless.We all know the winner 

Also do not forget to digg it


----------



## ray|raven (Jul 10, 2008)

Dark Star said:


> Will do that but its useless.We all know the winner


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Dark Star said:


> Will do that but its useless.We all know the winner



And that is why you dint want arch Xfce screenies 

Btw darky, I think you should have used KDE 4.1.x Beta for the comparison as it is comparatively more stable than 4.0.x. I can confirm this from my personal experience


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

Nice writeup like usual .


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

Pat said:


> And that is why you dint want arch Xfce screenies
> 
> Btw darky, I think you should have used KDE 4.1.x Beta for the comparison as it is comparatively more stable than 4.0.x. I can confirm this from my personal experience



I would love to do that .. But due to low internet connection I wasn't able to d/l it


----------



## Hitboxx (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't quite agree.

1) Lightest "yet" compared to what? I can see you put it up against GNOME but your title proves otherwise.
2) Where are the opponents called XFCE, and other managers?
3) You have performed a totally biased test IMHO, as OpenSUSE is whole heartedly KDE and Ubuntu is GNOME. (..meaning the DEs are distro dependent in one or more ways)
4) Yes, if you had done the test on something like Arch Linux, then I would have agreed considering the DEs are in their natural form rather than distro dependent, for.,e.g' GNOME in Arch is way different than GNOME on Ubuntu (very bloated).


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

I can provide Gnome and Fluxbox Screenshots in Arch if you like


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

> You have performed a totally biased test IMHO, as OpenSUSE is whole heartedly KDE and Ubuntu is GNOME.


Huh I have posted Ubuntu Numbers too.. Also I don't have Arch up and running and even don't have 256+ connection to give that test ..



> I can see you put it up against GNOME *but your title proves otherwise.*


When did I said Gnome is bad KDE is better than Gnome.. I just said the technology they are putting in is much more advanced than what Gnome offer currently..  How  / ? The memory usage only determine if the desktop is light on system or not..I even wrote that KDE isn't yet redy for Desktop 

I didn't used XFCE cause of many reasons.. I wanna test the 2 Major DE's  .Also Xfce in SUSE is too low and didn't even provide minimal options..


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

If you would like Arch for 64 it with 1 + gb of packages mail me your address and Ill be more than happy to send you a copy of it .


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Hitboxx said:


> I don't quite agree.
> 
> 1) Lightest "yet" compared to what? I can see you put it up against GNOME but your title proves otherwise.
> 2) Where are the opponents called XFCE, and other managers?
> ...





Dark Star said:


> Huh I have posted Ubuntu Numbers too.. Also I don't have Arch up and running and even don't have 256+ connection to give that test ..
> 
> When did I said Gnome is bad KDE is better than Gnome.. I just said the technology they are putting in is much more advanced than what Gnome offer currently..  How  / ? The memory usage only determine if the desktop is light on system or not..I even wrote that KDE isn't yet redy for Desktop
> 
> I didn't used XFCE cause of many reasons.. I wanna test the 2 Major DE's  .Also Xfce in SUSE is too low and didn't even provide minimal options..



He meant that your tag-line is incorrect. You cannot possible term it the "lightest" DE "yet" because it was only put up against GNOME.


----------



## QwertyManiac (Jul 10, 2008)

The only comments I see there are people appreciating your write-up (It is good) but not one really appreciating or bothering about the content. Makes me lol.


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

Yea most of the just say good work.. and go  that doesnt make sense.. Atleast people should point out mistakes. and must point on what I wrote !


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Dark Star said:


> Yea most of the just say good work.. and go  that doesnt make sense.. Atleast people should point out mistakes. and must point on what I wrote !



Dont get disheartened by that. Maybe they are just newbies as far as linux is concerned and dont really understand the technicalities. For many of them, its just about good screenies and easy-to-understand explanation. To think about it in a positive way, your articles may tempt them to try linux and who knows they might not remain newbies at all


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

Darkstar,

I still maintain my stand that the writeup was good. You wrote what you had access to and to do so obviously requires some effort which would make me bald had I tried to do the same. But since you would like to hear opinions let me throw in my 2 cents. 

1. The review of OpenSuse KDE and Ubuntu Gnome can't be used to judge either DE because as hitboxx both tends to be customized for both of the Operating systems. The reason Why I would look forward to a comparison on Arch is because once you install it you have nothing other than a command prompt. So If I were to install Gnome I would only have what the package actually consists. As a comparison example. My Arch Box with the same version of Gnome uses 128 MB With Compiz (Without Compiz Fusion and fusion icon i save about 20-25 mb more) and other daemons at idle. At  load it will be obviously more based on the applications I keep open. Oh also I wouldn't add AWN while doing comparison also as it tends to comsume 10+MB also?

2. The Environments chosen aren't exactly all of them available to a Linux User. However comparing all of them is a LOAD of work. Hitboxx likes Fluxbox, Mehulved likes Ratpoison, I like ..... I'm sure you get the point. Although the major ones are reviewed it won't exactly be the lightest because something tells me that Mehulveds Ratpoison environment would probably use the least. I think you could in the future when you get time add XFCE, Fluxbox and others.

If you need any help from me to enhance any content in here let me know .


----------



## Dark Star (Jul 10, 2008)

Man 128 Mb with CF  Thats sure fast.. i will surely install Arch now downloading it anyhow  and printing newbie docs


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 10, 2008)

Good article..


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

> Man 128 Mb with CF  Thats sure fast.. i will surely install Arch now downloading it anyhow  and printing newbie docs


Everything you possibly need for a new install is in the other thread on ArchLinux.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 11, 2008)

Awssome stuff man ! I think I am going to shift to KDE4 the moment I get my extra 256MB Stick.
I hope Gnome 3 follows the same suite and makes Gnome as light as it once was supposed to be.


----------



## mehulved (Jul 11, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> 2. The Environments chosen aren't exactly all of them available to a Linux User. However comparing all of them is a LOAD of work. Hitboxx likes Fluxbox, Mehulved likes Ratpoison, I like ..... I'm sure you get the point. Although the major ones are reviewed it won't exactly be the lightest because something tells me that Mehulveds Ratpoison environment would probably use the least. I think you could in the future when you get time add XFCE, Fluxbox and others.


Going by the title, it would seem, he's comparing Desktop Environments, you can't place Window Managers in the same comparison. It's like asking horses and elephants to race


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 11, 2008)

One thing I wonder, with PCs having 1 GB RAM common these days, why do U need such a basic DE or just CLI? what do U do with all that RAM & CPU sitting idle?


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 11, 2008)

> Going by the title, it would seem, he's comparing Desktop Environments, you can't place Window Managers in the same comparison. It's like asking horses and elephants to race


Sorry I thought they would all come under the same category. In that case other than Gnome and KDE there is nothing to compare correct?



> One thing I wonder, with PCs having 1 GB RAM common these days, why do U need such a basic DE or just CLI? what do U do with all that RAM & CPU sitting idle?



Why *CANT* we use a "basic DE or just CLI"? We probably run more applications than shown on the screen than the comparison shows.


----------



## mehulved (Jul 11, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Sorry I thought they would all come under the same category. In that case other than Gnome and KDE there is nothing to compare correct?


GNOME, KDE and XFCE are 3 Desktop Environments, having their own window managers, but can use other window managers.



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> One thing I wonder, with PCs having 1 GB RAM common these days, why do U need such a basic DE or just CLI? what do U do with all that RAM & CPU sitting idle?


Use it to run applications?


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 11, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Darkstar,
> 
> I still maintain my stand that the writeup was good. You wrote what you had access to and to do so obviously requires some effort which would make me bald had I tried to do the same. But since you would like to hear opinions let me throw in my 2 cents.
> 
> ...


You forgot to add that *MetalheadGautham likes IceWM* 

Anyway, have you ever used Conky with arch in any of these WMs or DEs ?


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 11, 2008)

Do u find 1 GB RAM & C2D CPUs slow to run application?


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2008)

^^yeah Bioshock and Crysis are few to name, we are still at the same crap


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 11, 2008)

> Do u find 1 GB RAM & C2D CPUs slow to run application?


Whats your point if you ever intend on getting there?



> Anyway, have you ever used Conky with arch in any of these WMs or DEs ?


Yes I'm using a Conky setup on my Box now. Its in both the screen shot threads.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 11, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Yes I'm using a Conky setup on my Box now. Its in both the screen shot threads.


please gimme its config file. mine is a bit corrupted.


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 11, 2008)

> Please gimme its config file. mine is a bit corrupted.


Sure but do you know if my conky is the same you want?  Theres quite alot of conky configurations on ubuntuforums also . I have referred to all those threads on my blog where I show one of them configured . It has links to the above mentioned resources. 

*www.filledvoid.com/2008/01/08/conky-a-light-system-monitor/

If this is classified as advertising let me know I'll be more than happy to remove link.


----------



## drsubhadip (Jul 12, 2008)

good writeup man


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 12, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Sure but do you know if my conky is the same you want?  Theres quite alot of conky configurations on ubuntuforums also . I have referred to all those threads on my blog where I show one of them configured . It has links to the above mentioned resources.
> 
> *www.filledvoid.com/2008/01/08/conky-a-light-system-monitor/
> 
> If this is classified as advertising let me know I'll be more than happy to remove link.


Thanks. I have three errors totally, and with Kate editor's horrible search function, I can't find them easily.

*Its not advertising*.

And I think conky is going to be my feature in my next post, 10 great old skool tux apps.


----------

