2 ms·
I did extensive testing of various desktop environments, and KDE was consistently the most sluggish of the bunch (tested across multiple devices), even after di
by kstenerud 4y ago
I did extensive testing of various desktop environments, and KDE was consistently the most sluggish of the bunch (tested across multiple devices), even after disabling all of the eye candy. The next worst is Gnome.
XFCE is snappy, but annoying due to the 1 pixel window border that you can't ever click on a high DPI display. Mate is almost as snappy and has better UX, so I use that.
- bayindirh 4y agoIf you can share your test methodology, I can reproduce your results and can see for myself. My personal experience doesn't mirror what you have said, but sharing personal experiences do not bring us to an objective truth. I use ALT+ (R/L) click for move resize, so I never interact with borders of windows for a very long time, honestly.
- hnlmorg 4y agoI run KDE on an old Intel NUK. It’s got 4GB RAM, 32GB SSD and a decade old i3. KDE still flies on that system. The only time I’ve found KDE not feel responsive was in Kubuntu. I have no idea what is different about Kubuntu vs other Linux distros but the slowness in KDE on Ubuntu is down to Ubuntu and not KDE.
- doubled112 4y agoI've found that a barebones KDE is fast, but KDE with Akonadi and file indexing is resource intensive, especially until everything is indexed.
- bayindirh 4y agoWhen baloo finishes indexing its load on processor is practically zero. Akonadi is just a centralized account management framework which works on events coming from these accounts. Baloo uses a lot of RAM depending on what you index, but neither Akkonadi, nor baloo takes custody of the processor(s) and degrade system performance.