Is using KDE asking too much of my laptop?

Q

Q-Ball

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
118
So I wiped Windows off of my laptop around Christmas because I'd been itching to put *NIX on there for a while. I started out with Kubuntu, but when I saw this thread on the forums the other day, I was intrigued by PC-BSD. I don't know why, but *BSD has always had a greater pull for me than Linux, so I'd like to give PC-BSD a shot. I suppose maybe I'm an incorrigible experimenter, too :p

Anyway, my question is this: is a 850mhz PIII with 256MB of RAM too little in the way of system resources to handle KDE effectively? I noticed Firefox seemed a little sluggish with multiple tabs open in Kubuntu, but I wasn't sure if that was really a lack of system resources due to KDE being a memory hog or just how things work with my laptop under *NIX. I kinda like KDE as far as desktops go and wouldn't mind getting to know it a little better. That isn't to say I wouldn't be opposed to configuring another X desktop, however.

Thanks in advance for your input, guys :)
 
Q-Ball said:
So I wiped Windows off of my laptop around Christmas because I'd been itching to put *NIX on there for a while. I started out with Kubuntu, but when I saw this thread on the forums the other day, I was intrigued by PC-BSD. I don't know why, but *BSD has always had a greater pull for me than Linux, so I'd like to give PC-BSD a shot. I suppose maybe I'm an incorrigible experimenter, too :p

Anyway, my question is this: is a 850mhz PIII with 256MB of RAM too little in the way of system resources to handle KDE effectively? I noticed Firefox seemed a little sluggish with multiple tabs open in Kubuntu, but I wasn't sure if that was really a lack of system resources due to KDE being a memory hog or just how things work with my laptop under *NIX. I kinda like KDE as far as desktops go and wouldn't mind getting to know it a little better. That isn't to say I wouldn't be opposed to configuring another X desktop, however.

Thanks in advance for your input, guys :)
Click to expand...

I've never run KDE on anything less than 512mb. For that class of system, I'd say that 256mb is ok for kde 2.0, but its on the light side for 3.x.
 
kde in and of itself is not too much for 256 MB RAM. I think you'll run into more issues running many of the heavier KDE Apps however, they add up fast. I can boot into a clean KDE 3.5 load using a total of about 36MB RAM. However, when I start adding on kmail, wallet, kopete, amaroK, browser, maybe a shell or 3 mem usage can ballon to 256+MB in a hurry.

I prefer XFCE for my old laptop. Its' a p3 450 with 256MB RAM. I use a little distro mostly based from Zenwalk (Slackware based) called Kwort. It sticks to XFCE and GTK only apps, no gnome, no qt. It's probably a little less featured than many would prefer, but it hums along just great on this old hardware! With XFCE, FF with a few tabs open, GAIM, XChat, Bfilter (ads, esp flash ads can grind old cpus), sylpheed, terminal open I barely top 100MB of RAM usage.

Don't get me wrong though, I love the full featuredness of KDE and I use on my desktop, but it's not the best fit for leaner systems IMO.
 
You can always keep KDE as a base and use a lightweight Window Manager instead, like Openbox. :)
 
I dont think its too much. I am running a P3 866 with 384mb ram. Not a big deal at all. It runs almost as fast if not faster in some things than my Duron 2.2/XP box. I didnt like the way Firefox felt in PC bsd and made the switch to opera. Much quicker on this POS box. Your machine will handle it better than you think. I was expecting a mess when I swithced form Ubuntu..but I have been very impressed with how much quicker this thing runs with KDE 3.5...Superkaramba eye candy stuff...all kinds of stuff turned on. Just try it...trust me you'll love it.

Ghettobox
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top