Kubuntu performance > Ubuntu... why?

[motoburn]

Not that I am complaining... just curious... I thought Kubuntu and Ubuntu were about the same underneath. But my Kubuntu install smokes Ubuntu. I dont have any data to prove it... just my overall experience. My wiFi is ready in what seems half the time, my apps launch almost immediately, there is little to no lag now on MySql Workbench, Netbeans, and Dolphin loads my file display in a fraction of the time Nautilus did...

Out of curiosity, what makes Kubuntu run so much better? Is it KDE vs GNOME?

[Yuri sss]

Not that I am complaining... just curious... I thought Kubuntu and Ubuntu were about the same underneath. But my Kubuntu install smokes Ubuntu. I dont have any data to prove it... just my overall experience. My wiFi is ready in what seems half the time, my apps launch almost immediately, there is little to no lag now on MySql Workbench, Netbeans, and Dolphin loads my file display in a fraction of the time Nautilus did...

Out of curiosity, what makes Kubuntu run so much better? Is it KDE vs GNOME?


I've had a similar experience when I tried the Gnome-based Ubuntu, it sometimes felt like a slug on treacle. I've then installed kde-full on top of it to get Kubuntu, which has been running fine ever since - quick, snappy, responsive.
So it most certainly is Kde vs. Gnome.

[motoburn]

interesting. welp! I'm sold. Been searching for a good M$ replacement. Tried a few linux distros and now am LOVING Kubuntu! I have already begun re-writing all my .net clients in Java... (which will take me some time as I have to learn that now) but once I have that finished, I will start prepping the office staff to change to Kubuntu :)

[lcorken]

I've noticed Kubuntu being faster than Ubuntu also but as mentioned above I haven't tried to measure it. Just a matter of feel.
Kubuntu hasn't always been faster though I think. KDE 4.0 was slower due to early developement of the 4th major upgrade, or some such. I suspect the developers put a lot of effort into speed to hush the critics.
KDE does use more RAM but even my old rig with only 1Gig RAM seems to run fine.

Ken.

[GreyGeek]

You are running KDE4 setting on top a Ubuntu, so the underpinnings for both Gnome and KDE4 should be the same, ergo, any differences should be due to the DE.

Do a little Googling and you'll find folk's "benchmarks" are all over the park. Some swear that Gnome is faster, others swear by KDE4. Some swear AT both! Each claims a smaller memory foot print. (KDE4 does use about 40% less memory than KDE3).

All of these reports depend heavily on the hardware folks are running on, and on how they configured their video, sound and other devices.

So rejoice in your speed improvements but, as always, ymmv.

[NeoGraven]

I've found that over all, KDE is more responsive than Gnome in general. There are pros and cons to each I think, but it seems that compositing effects' performance can make a difference as well.

[GreyGeek]

If I turn desktop effects on my video performance drops to 1/3rd or 1/4th of what it was. Without desktop effects on Stellarium will report 20-30 fps. With it on the speed is 4-12 fps.

While spinning desktops and exploding windows are nice, and if my midrange G45 video was fast enough to support them I'd keep desktop effects on, since I like speed or over dazzle I'll keep the effects off.

[SIR_Taco]

One thing to keep in mind is that KDE just went through a huge transition with their code-base. They re-wrote a lot of code and rethought, redesigned many aspects. The 4.X series has been rough for many, but the dividends are paying off in performance now. It's, arguably, cleaner and more sleek than the previous versions.

In comparison, Gnome is still using an older code-base which has many patches and bug-fixes tagged along the way. There's only so far you can go on band-aids, popsicle sticks, and bubble gum. Eventually you need to re-write code. Gnome is working on that, but they're a little behind.

Just my 2 cents :)

[GreyGeek]

...
The 4.X series has been rough for many, but the dividends are paying off in performance now. It's, arguably, cleaner and more sleek than the previous versions.
...


As a retired programmer who used Qt4 at work I certain agree with that statement!

[x-shaney-x]

I find ubuntu runs better personally, certainly more responsive and desktop effects are smoother.
Apps seem to open faster also.
But I have also noticed kubuntu runs better with compiz than kwin.

Doesn't bother me much anyway, I am prepared to sacrifice performance (slightly) for what I feel is a better desktop experience.

[oshunluvr]

My 2 shillings: I bet it has something to do with "tweaking" or customization. My gnome experience vs. KDE - I have always found Gnome much harder to dig around in and maximize performance, whereas KDE seems to be developed with the idea that the user will do just that.

I think an experience KDE user will find KDE much faster, but an experienced Gnome user may not. Factoring in user comfort level; knowing where things are and such.

I use Ubuntu on my media computer, but I don't play with it at all - it just runs videos and hulu and such. My daily desktop (KDE) has been massaged to maximize performance. My server is still using KDE3 since I rarely access the desktop at all - although upgrading Ubuntu server is on my to-do list.

[Yuri sss]

I have already begun re-writing all my .net clients in Java...


Talk about jumping out of the frying pan and into the open fire :o
Why do you want to use that Java garbage? It stinks just at least as badly as .net (the only advantage being that it's not being done by M$).
It would be much better if you rewrote your stuff in Qt4, then it would also integrate just fine with Kubuntu.

[motoburn]

LOL I totaly agree... now ::)

see this thread (http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/index.php?topic=3113509.msg240660#msg240660)

:)