KDE Users: 3vs4. No flame, just a poll!

[nekoexmachina]

Hello.
Just interested, how many KDE users are out here, AND how much of them still using KDE3.5?


count /me as a proud kde3 user on a desktop machine.

[purgatori]

Umm, well, I haven't installed KDE at all this time, and the last time I used it was for a very brief period indeed, but I was using KDE4.

[graudeejs]

KDE3 is still more stable

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

I have KDE3.5 running on a high end desk as well.

[adamk]

KDE4, easily.

Adam

[gkontos]

KDE4 and I must say I was impressed with the plasma desktop. Definitely more memory consuming though. This is from a 4G amd64 system:
last pid: 7589; load averages: 0.04, 0.13, 0.18 up 0+02:15:39 14:56:51
235 processes: 1 running, 234 sleeping
CPU: 4.7% user, 0.0% nice, 1.7% system, 0.8% interrupt, 92.9% idle
Mem: 687M Active, 191M Inact, 1651M Wired, 6684K Cache, 1349M Free
Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free

[kpedersen]

KDE 3.x is a little slow
KDE 4.x is unusably slow

I use KDE 3.x on the Solaris SunRays at university and seriously doubt that KDE 4.x will ever be fast enough to be usable on thin clients.

I do kinda like the look of KDE 3.x though. I think KDE 4.x looks a little bit childish.

[rusty]

Using KDE4 on this box, runs nice and quick, it's also pretty reasonable on mem usage all things considered.

Last pid: 3002; load averages: 0.01, 0.10, 0.14
134 processes: 1 running, 133 sleeping
CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 1.5% system, 0.0% interrupt, 98.5% idle
CPU 1: 3.4% user, 0.0% nice, 3.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 93.3% idle
CPU 2: 0.7% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.3% idle
CPU 3: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.7% interrupt, 97.8% idle
Mem: 339M Active, 73M Inact, 1383M Wired, 9692K Cache, 55M Buf, 2115M Free
Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free

[kpedersen]

tbh 339M usage isn't too bad. I think Windows XP was ~200M

I also envy your 4 core, 2gigs ram machine :)

Anyone know the typical RAM usage of KDE 3.x on FreeBSD?

[phoenix]

I use KDE 3.x on the Solaris SunRays at university and seriously doubt that KDE 4.x will ever be fast enough to be usable on thin clients.

"Thin-client", as in, a box with a display and a NIC, where the apps run on the server, the graphics are generated on the server, and the raw graphics are pumped down the network pipe?

Or "diskless client", as in, a box with a CPU, RAM, NIC, accelerated 3D graphics card, that mounts directories via NFS off the server, loads apps into local RAM, and executes the apps on the local CPU, using the local graphics card to generate the graphics?

The former should not be used with any kind of desktop environment or a WM more advanced than IceWM. There's just not enough network throughput to handle a modern desktop env, even with all the GUI glitz disabled.

The latter runs KDE4 just fine, along with KDE3, and GNOME2. We use this everyday. :) All of our diskless setups run KDE3, with a few experimental boot options for KDE4 and GNOME2.

Personally, I think "thin-clients" need to die out completely, and finally. They're really nothing more than embedded OSes with a VNC/RDP/X11 client. The network and server requirements are just too high. Especially when a decent (2.0 GHz AMD Sempron, 1 GB RAM, 1 Gbps NIC, nVidia graphics) diskless setup costs ($150 CDN) less than a low-end thin-client (I've yet to see one under $200 CDN). Plus, a server skookum enough to run 50 thin-clients, can run ~400 diskless stations.

[DutchDaemon]

Moved to KDE forum, and added a Poll (way on up). Multiple choice allowed.

[nekoexmachina]

Moved to KDE forum, and added a Poll (way on up). Multiple choice allowed.
Thx.
Is a poll-adding moderator-only function, or was I missing something while creating thread?
:)

[sk8harddiefast]

Well. I don't use right now none of them, but I have used them both. I like kde 3.5 but 4 too because have very nice gui. But kde 4 is a little slow

[sossego]

I'm using both on the laptop.

[DutchDaemon]

Thx.
Is a poll-adding moderator-only function, or was I missing something while creating thread?
:)

I think a regular member can add one when creating a thread. Not sure, haven't been a regular member for a while ;)

[pkubaj]

I use KDE4. I've tried KDE3 once (on Debian Lenny), but I didn't like it from the very beginning. GNOME is much better than KDE3 for me, although I still prefer KDE4 to GNOME (but GNOME wins on my notebook with 1366x768 resolution, KDE4 is too cluttered, but it's awesome on FullHD 24" display). So for me: KDE4 > GNOME >Xfce, Openbox (I really like Xfce and Openbox alone, but got tired of it) > LXDE, other *boxes (not bad, but still...) > KDE3.

[nekoexmachina]

Bump for holy update. KDE3 still goes for me, even after upgrading the PC (KDE4 isn't slow now, it's just, err, feels like pile of something I don't want to use).

[kpedersen]

Whilst I prefer the look and feel of KDE3... There really is no hope for it now. All of its dependent libraries will end up Qt4 / KDE4 specific and KDE3 will fade into oblivion. This is kind of like asking if on Windows I prefer the Windows XP theme or Windows 7 theme... Like I have a choice :p.

Luckily unlike KDE4... The Windows team actually have a bit of style and have done a good job with Windows 7's theme.

If I knew that KDE2x was going to be supported for ever more (i.e the build environment becomes greatly simplified) then I would go for that regardless of look.

Usability is attractive. And KDE4 doesn't particularly provide in that aspect either lol.

To this post, there were 32 people who voted.

KDE3 has 9
KDE4 has 23

So from this, we know that 9 people are using Thinkpads and 23 people are using gaming machines :p (Am I close?)

[phoenix]

I use KDE4. I've tried KDE3 once (on Debian Lenny), but I didn't like it from the very beginning. GNOME is much better than KDE3 for me, although I still prefer KDE4 to GNOME (but GNOME wins on my notebook with 1366x768 resolution, KDE4 is too cluttered, but it's awesome on FullHD 24" display). So for me: KDE4 > GNOME >Xfce, Openbox (I really like Xfce and Openbox alone, but got tired of it) > LXDE, other *boxes (not bad, but still...) > KDE3.

Install plasma-netbook. It works beautifully on lower-resolution displays (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc). Everything is maximised by default, and the "desktop" is the app launcher menu.

With 1366x768, you can add a normal panel with a taskbar applet, to get the best of all worlds (the "desktop" becomes just another app clickable in the taskbar). Works beautifully.

This is how I have my 1024x600 netbook and my 800x600 HTPC setup.

It is a pain to use at high resolutions, like when I connect my netbook to my 24" 1900x1080 monitor, though. :)

[pkubaj]

Install plasma-netbook. It works beautifully on lower-resolution displays (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc). Everything is maximised by default, and the "desktop" is the app launcher menu.

With 1366x768, you can add a normal panel with a taskbar applet, to get the best of all worlds (the "desktop" becomes just another app clickable in the taskbar). Works beautifully.

This is how I have my 1024x600 netbook and my 800x600 HTPC setup.

It is a pain to use at high resolutions, like when I connect my netbook to my 24" 1900x1080 monitor, though. :)

I've recently installed GNOME3 and fallen in love with it. Much better than both GNOME2 and KDE4. The only problem is that it's not available for FreeBSD yet (I have it on Arch Linux).

[phoenix]

Well, then you'll probably like plasma-netbook, which is where a lot of the GNOME3 features appear to come from. ;)

[ikreos]

I used KDE3 a few years ago. Tried KDE4 and thought it was junk. Especially the irritating file manager like menu (I know you can switch). Now I just stick to a window manager (openbox [wish it didn't use XML though]) a taskbar (tint2) and a terminal emulator (rxvt). I don't even use a "desktop", and it's annoying that firefox requires devel/desktop-file-utils when I don't use one. What happened to the simple menu, taskbar, quicklaunch bar, and okay maybe a simple desktop? Why overcomplicate things?

[phoenix]

You're describing IceWM. :) Looks / acts pretty much like Windows 95 did. And all configured via a simple text file.

[ikreos]

I prefer the Amiga Workbench look myself. :e

Hmm... Giving it a closer look maybe I'll give IceWM a try.

[Eponasoft]

KDE3. Why? Much lighter, with all the bells and whistles I need for a desktop. Takes hours to build it, but it's worth it IMO (using windowmaker in the meantime). The last time I ran KDE4 on this machine (which was during the 7.x days of FreeBSD), it ran way too slowly, the file manager crashed repeatedly, and I thought the whole thing looked like a really stupid Windows Vista clone anyways. KDE3 has never once let me down and I'll continue to use it until it's no longer in Ports... or I get a computer that can run KDE4 properly.

[sim]

So from this, we know that 9 people are using Thinkpads and 23 people are using gaming machines :p (Am I close?)

Not exactly, running KDE4 on Thinkpad here :D

sim

[binyo66]

KDE3 on laptop, KDE4 on XEON

[Eponasoft]

I'm probably going to still be using KDE 3 after building my new system tomorrow, despite the fact that it's a 2.8GHz P4 with 2GB of RAM. I just like 3 better for some reason...

[Maredelamer]

I was using KDE4 on this P4/1gig machine, but ultimately I seem to have ended up with XFCE4. Regardless, KDE4 worked fine and it was more the compile time than anything else that prompted the switch. For contrast, the initial release of KDE4 hardly worked on this machine.

Regardless, for me it was more than just eye candy but also the unified whole. For me, KDE4 worked really well in all honesty, but, especially in contrast to XFCE4/fluxbox, it IS slow and clunky. Ironically KDE4 is faster than WinXP(Same install age as this hardware) is on this machine.

Regardless, I am still trying to fill the gaps moving from KDE4 left.

[Maredelamer]

Hrm, yes actually I should clarify that this machine is a P4 running at 3ghz with 1 gig ram. Quite the difference than a 1ghz p4, Teehee...