KDE 4 on very old computer it works much faster than vista

[boost43534]

what kind of computer is that?

[Robloxian182]

will this OS run windows programs?because i need an OS thats runs on my computer with half a gig of ram and a 34 gig HD with pentium 4.also i want it to be compatible with my floppy drive.

[zzurrien]

@Robloxian182 You can try with Wine, but linux is not windows.

[Robloxian182]

well i won't be able to get on the web with KDE because i have AT&T wireless internet at my house,and it works only with windows 2000,XP(what im using now),vista, and Mac OS X.

[JesusManson323]

How well would this run on a 733 MHz with 256 RAM?

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

computer in this video has similair specs, so performance should be similair . But if you have better than my crappy video card, kde4 will run even faster. also the newest kde 4.4 with qt 4.6 is a great performance improvement, finally plasma animations work smoothly on my computer.

[MrMakeman]

@ubuntu704feistyfawn

What distro would you recommend for an old computer with 833 mhz 128 mb ram and 32 bit video? I prefer upbuntu or a popular one. But nothing like Puppy because I can't get it to save my stuff.

[timpster93]

@MrMakeman its spelled

U B U N T U i pronounce it you-bun-2 but people say its supposed to bee ooo-boon-too

[JeremyPassarelli]

Will this work on a Pentium MMX 166 Mhz Computer with 128 MB of ram and a 2GB Hard Drive? Thanks

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

oh yeah, it will work but it will be very slow.

[kingcrimson234]

@JeremyPassarelli don't even bother installing any recent linux distribution on that old pentium MMX. if you want it to be fast and still run the majority of recent software, you'll be best off with windows 2000 pro. a system like that will run anything that isn't multimedia related very nicely. modern web browsers are slow on it though. chrome would be ideal, but it won't run on 2k. try firefox or opera.

[eduartistica]

please can you explain me how old are your pc?

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

read description...

[oopy16]

OMG, something free is included with something you have to pay for that's horrible, YOU GET WHAT YOU FUCKING PAY FOR BITCH

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

just fuck off from here. again you are saying somethink without proof. please prove that qt4 sucks, if no, then as i said fuck off, i dont need useless posts

[cyborgtroy]

It seems "free" is worth a lot these days, then.

Well, I could get something free that runs anywhere, no restrictions, or I could pay a lot extra for restricted software that only runs on certain hardware most of the time.

I would rather not have vendor lock-in of any sort.

[oopy12]

Ready, Ha, As if linux is no where near being user friendly at all, you guys don't like os x cause its not free and open source

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

os x uses kernel which is free. now fuck off you loser kid

[oopy12]

OMG double posting, WHO GIVES A FUCK

[oopy12]

kde isn't better, FUCKER

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

damn, stop double posting, you should grow up first because it looks like you are 10 years old kid who doesnt have any friends.

[oopy12]

well thats your opinion, the way you act isn't helping your cause, anyone who believes linux is ready for desktops is a tru idiot

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

yes its ready. in fact that today released kde 4.2 really rocks. it has more effects than os x or windows, it has polished look, and os x dont have plasma shell as their desktop. also, qt4 is much more powerful than os x gui toolkit. kde has got newest technologies integrated in kde4.

[oopy16]

how is having desktops effects make it ready for desktop user IDIOT,

Plasma Sucks there is no way to delete widgets unless you go into terminal which ISN'T user friendly

qt4... yet again sucks

[oopy12]

I was just saying preferred OS X over linux

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

no, you said that os x is better. well it isnt realy. go away from here, we dont need idiots who come here to say that linux sucks. you need to proof that first.

[oopy12]

ha, your the idiot, do you truly believe that linux is actually good, or is just that your sucked into the free software mumbo jumbo

[oopy12]

Nigga

[oopy12]

oh no some software isn't free OMG what has the world come to. GET A FUCKING LIFE

[oopy12]

KDE 4 is good, but OS X is waaaaaaaaaay better

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

os x sucks, they use bsd kernel which is actually free, but you need to pay money for unconfigured bsd called os x. and os x is has removed compatibility, i cant run it in pc. wtf?

[Steven707]

oopy12:

You're comparing a desktop environment to an operating system. Hell, KDE4 has even been ported to OS X.

[andresberger]

I tested KDE on my previous computer and was very slow, so I turned back to Windows 9x which was faster. Now I use windows XP.

Graphical interfaces on Linux suck very much. The people that design those interfaces are programming nerds that don't know a shit how people think about things.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

Then maybe you have nvidia card, kde4 with nvidia works slow as hell, you should try new beta driver which has fix for it. Linux interface rocks, that one of the biggest reasons why i switched to linux. Especially gnome look is very good, because its clean and elegant. its in tango project style. xp style sucks, yuck, that blue color! kde4 style has many colors, but you cant see them because you suck at this.

[isthisnickvalid]

But you have to admit that Vista's style is cool. In fact, I think that Oxygen icons are quite similar.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

i can say that vista style is cool only in first look, because more you use vista then more it looks ugly. windows dont have full featured icon style, in xp half icons are from win 95, in vista 1/3 is still from win 95. and you think that its cool? i love linux gui, because icons and everythink else is always complete. and no oxygen icons dont look like vista's, they are much darker, and look at vista's folder icon and kde' 4 folder icon, they have different style.

[isthisnickvalid]

Well, yes, I meant that they were more photorealistic than their predecesors (Windows XP and KDE 3.x had more cartoonish icons) and you know, the overall style.

And talking about linux GUIs I've always preferred KDE over anything else, but the 4.x series are still quite immature. The 4.2 beta looks promising, though!

[isthisnickvalid]

btw, does konqueror run faster than Firefox on that computer? I guess it does, but it's just to be sure. thanks in advance!

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

it is kubuntu. now im using arch linux with kdemod, it is 3x faster than kubuntu. and konqueror now runs not in 3 seconds, but in half second, if you dont believe look at clip called how fast arch linux is? well i like kde3 everaldo crystal icons as much as oxygen, i think they both are very good. kde3 style is mixed of cartoonish xp and realistic mac os x icons. and yes, firefox is way slower than konqueror

[isthisnickvalid]

thanks for the info, man!

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

no problem, if you have some questions even advanced you can ask me, im pretty good at linux and using it for 3 years.

[BlakeCollins2]

I have a faster one 500mhz 320 ram 4gb hdd

not to bignote myself but i will upload a vid soon

[rothkoaintdead]

Also, I just investigated remote X-sessions, multiple desktops etc. I'm not technical but now feel powerful!

X internals are important. heavy UI like Gwm, Kwm impress us and encourage us to hack X. Hacking X gives amazing results even with light wm and light apps.

for contrast, see the amazing youtube vid for FREEBSD + COMPIZ. then read all the posts below it about hardware/software. Maybe 10 years later we can all enjoy this kind of

HOT SEX.

[rothkoaintdead]

i agree absolutely, ubuntu704feistyfawn.

First is good hardware.

Second, is to carefully configure two X-sessions. heavy and light.

My real work happens on a p3 800MHz 256MB using fluxbox. The convenient config tools for flux really help.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

thank you people for watching and rates. kde 4.1 seems to be much faster than 4.0 in this machine, i was amazed very much.

[lighthouseprj]

Kubuntu 8.04 with KDE 4.1 Beta 2 is running on a AMD Athlon 850 (P-III compatible) with 640Mb memory (I always like a lot of RAM memory) and a GeForce2 32mb videocard distro test machine.

And nearly all Plasmoids and the fancy KWIN is running well. It is amazing that such modern OS / Windows manager is running on a 8-9 year old machine.

If you have no better PC, you can really work well on this configuration. OK is not a racing machine.

Don't try this with Vista ;-)

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

yeah, it is, kde4 is quite fast

[ryuchao009]

the biggest problem I have with linux is it won't run on old hardware like p2s w/ 64mb ram. all of win9x will work on it better than linux.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

agree, linux with graphical interface will not run good or it will not be usable, u need at least p 3 to fully run all these environmets. but still there are lightweight linux distros like fluxbuntu, well it isnt so usable like win 9x but its very very nice when u compare look to win 9x.

[mozaks80]

anything runs faster than vista

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

lol, yeah :P

[Gromenauerauer]

My old PIII /256MBRAM / 18GB HD runs Win98SE as fast as any Linux dist, and can play flash movies and other web stuff that old linux dists cant. I'd tested it.

[johnmurray156]

i am thinking of installing kubuntu on my win 98 toshiba sat cds 350 u think that would work?

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

it will work if u have at least 128 mb ram, but it will be super slow, u should better tryout fluxbuntu or xubuntu, these desktops are still very nice and customizable (u can make them look like vista easy) while it still deserves low system requirements

[mavamaarten]

my PC Sucked.

untill i tried ubuntu.

even on the live-CD it runs MUCH faster !

[masterchief3k]

Yeah i put hardy heron on my parent's computer and it made it so much more responsive, compared to when XP was on it, 935 MHz P3, and 256 MB ram lol. I have hardy on my 1gb, 1.8 GHz, 7900GT machine.

[EquinoxDarkness]

Dude, if you're gonna run Linux on such an old system, use xfce.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

dude, im just tested kde 4. im not using it for regular use. and xfce sux, it uses gtk, this means that speed is same as gnome, firefox works same in xfce or gnome, and i hate buggy thunar. and im gonna switch to kde 3.5 soon :P

and if u dont know what to say then better dont type shit posts.

[goomba008]

I'm the first to say gtk is ass, but this statement: "it uses gtk, this means that speed is same as gnome" is just absurd. Gnome isn't slow because of GTK, it's slow because of the insane library dependencies. Same with KDE, it's slow because of the huge libs that need to be loaded in memory when you start an application. Btw, the only 2 apps you actually start in your crappy video is System Settings and Konqy, both slow as shit. xfce sucks yes, but it's lightweight and fast. You fail.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

xfce speed is same as gnome u noob. apps like a ff or oo will work the same speed in gnome like in xfce, gtk is heavy actually, and if u dont know this then browse more google. noob xfce is not fast it just uses fast apps like thunar, xfwm4, xfce4-panel etc. these apps uses less memory and are faster, but when i run other app like ff theres no difference in xfce or gnome. and if u are total idiot then sorry that i dont said gnome libraries but gtk

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

everyone can understand that by saying gtk i mean everythink whats supposed with it

[goomba008]

Humm, I don't need to search google, I have used and profiled them all. GTK will give you a penalty of maybe what 0.05 secs on startup over Qt? compare this to the 2 sec delay of loading kdelibs. And yes xfce apps are lighter and faster, that's the point. xfce is made of apps. These apps may be preferable to run on an old system, which is what the OP wanted to say. Calling me a noob or an idiot doesn't change the facts. Try using complete words and correct grammar, it adds credibility

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

firstly i have to sorry for u for these rough words, i was angry for ur words but i didnt control my anger, and i dont speak good in english, im lithuanian. as much as i tested qt 3.3 is smoother and faster than gtk 2, everyone can say that and this makes kde 3.5 faster than gnome. kde4 qt 4.1 was slow as hell but qt 4.4 is faster, but still slow.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

if app starts faster this dont means that it will work faster inside. the same is in here - kde 3.5 apps starting slower than gnome's but they are working faster. very good example is konqueror and nautilus - konqueror browses files much faster than nautilus but it runs slower. and im not gonna have correct grammar and professional writing, because still, im a dude and i dont care about rules :P

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

and dont say shit about my pc, cuz this pc is best i have ever used, it worked for me five years perfectly. and its still working perfect. i just bought a new pc but take a look - my hdd died after few days, and one ram slocket died. this is absurd. old pcs are much better (but not faster lol) than the new ones

[Kurosaki0Ichigo]

Best pc,s for linux kde4 is a intel based pc with almost everthing from intel.

Intel grafisch chipsets work better in linux than nvidia or ati.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

sorry, but this is dumb. most compatible video cards with linux are only nvidia. intel cpu is absolute s*it with high price. i tested, amd processors are 30% faster than identical intel thats why now i buy only amd.

[shanksgirl]

amd sucks everone knows that who use linux.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

i think you are the only who think so

[superjokerrr]

can u tell me what this means ?

( on the system properties of my My Computer )

Intel (R)

Celeron (R) 2.66 GHz

2.67 GHz , 192 MB of RAM

can u please tell me what does this for ? or is it good ?

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

sure your computer is very good for kde4, but i strongly reccomend to upgrade your ram at least to 256 mb. in this my video i havent installed video driver, if i would be installed them then kde 4 would be 2x faster.

[superjokerrr]

how to up my ram? and also how do i log as administrator ?? plz tell me

[Jpres]

You have to buy ram sticks for your model of your computer, some can only be upgraded to a certain amount, although I have to tell you 192 mb is horrible for most computers, the average computer has 512-1024mb of ram

[superjokerrr]

hey man , which is bigger MHz or GHz? my computer is 2.66 GHz is that good ?? , hey man how will i know the memory of my comp ? where to go to know it ?

[tubewatch15x]

Nice vid demo :)

I have KDE 4.0.2 live CD, yet I want to install it too for my old PC with 1.5Ghz Processor, 256MB RAM, 128MB ATI Radeon 9600SE.

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

thanks, in this video i dont have installed video drivers, if i would be installed these drivers it will be about 2x faster.

[tubewatch15x]

Nice vid demo :)

I have KDE 4.0.2 live CD, yet I want to install it too for my old PC with 1.5Ghz Processor, 256MB RAM, 128MB ATI Radeon 9600SE.

[tubewatch15x]

I have KDE 4.0.2 too, and I'm planning to install it for my old PC with 1.5Ghz processor, 256MB RAM, 128MB ATI Vid Card. (hope this will run fine and still do multitask)

But I have already XP installed on it and I don't want to loose files and damage current OS and it's has only one partition, hope I can partition it safely...btw nice demo (it's faster than running on live cd)

[Molex350]

I have now Athlon 1900+ about 5years old it's quite fast on XP... I want to try new Kubuntu with KDE 4:)

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

it will work good. but if u have quite good video card then it will be fast like wind

[gomesbascoy]

u call that an very old computer? xD

nice demo

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

well others 1800 mhz computer calling old and crappy, thats why i call it very old

[ubuntu704feistyfawn]

well others 1800 mhz computer calling old and crappy, thats why i call it very old