On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf@...> wrote: > Well, KDE4 performance is not indicative of Qt4 performance; rather, it > shows the level of bloat that KDE e.V. introduced with their > rewrite/reboot of the KDE series. Qt4 should in theory be faster compared > to Qt3 when it is executing equivalent code, primarily due to the improved > graphics support. How much is this going to matter for older video chipsets tho? My Thinkpad 390X has a Neomagic 256AV chipset with 2.5MB VRAM. It's not like that's going to support any fancy graphics. I'm not against it so long as I can TURN IT OFF, which is something that the KDE4 devs can't seem to understand. http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Neomagic_MagicMedia256AV > I am currently looking at the possibility of absorbing most of Qt3 into > the Trinity project, and only using the core portions of Qt4 for the > abstracted access to low-level system interfaces. The Trinity project > needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to both > stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing > components where possible. A good example of this is the Amarok OSD; > since it uses fake transparency it both presents a very dated/bad > appearance to the user and eats CPU cycles unnecessarily. Graphics > devices from 15 years ago have had hardware shader capability, and if the > Qt4 base components will allow such tasks to be offloaded to the GPU > instead of slowing down the CPU, I would consider that an improvement. Which chipsets? The ATI Mobility M3(Rage128 Based)? Or Radeon/GeForce and higher? As for Amarok, I don't use it. MPlayer is my media player. A Qt port of Firefox would be great tho........ > The last KDE3 version of KOffice is part of the Trinity distribution, but > no active development is occurring at this time. Not an issue so long as it's maintained IMO. > You may want to ask Robert Xu; he is in charge of the > OpenSUSE/RedHat/Fedora packaging. You can find him on the trinity-devel > list. Will do. Thanx