Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

KDE 3.0 has been released - Get It!

<< < (5/7) > >>

voidmain:

quote:Originally posted by X11:



I still think Ximian GNOME RULES.
--- End quote ---


I installed Ximian Gnome the same time I isntalled Ximian Evolution. While I love Evolution, I still do not like Gnome.  But that's why there are many window managers. Everyone can be happy.

Master of Reality:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i now have KDE 3.0 on my comp!!!!!
i see many little differences in the first 42 seconds i have been on, but suspect there is numerous changes.
                 :D    :D    :cool:    ;)

voidmain:
Master, if you haven't already tried out all the styles the combo I find most pleasing to this point is:

In KDE Control Center:
Style: Kerimak (Enable GUI effects, Translucent/Software Blend, Show ICONS on buttons)
Window Decoration: Glow
Icons: KDE Hi-Color Size: 32
Panel: Tiny, autohide, fast
Background: Walpaper/Scaled/only_k.jpg
System->LoginManager->Background: Walpaper/Scaled/kubical.jpg

And X set up at 1280x1024/32bit on a 19" monitor.

Just some things to play with. Let me know what you find interesting.

Master of Reality:

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
Master, if you haven't already tried out all the styles the combo I find most pleasing to this point is:

In KDE Control Center:
Style: Kerimak (Enable GUI effects, Translucent/Software Blend, Show ICONS on buttons)
Window Decoration: Glow
Icons: KDE Hi-Color Size: 32
Panel: Tiny, autohide, fast
Background: Walpaper/Scaled/only_k.jpg
System->LoginManager->Background: Walpaper/Scaled/kubical.jpg

And X set up at 1280x1024/32bit on a 19" monitor.

Just some things to play with. Let me know what you find interesting.
--- End quote ---



sweet.
I'm using "slick" icons.
It runs a bit slow (well... not extremely fast), but that should all change April 20 when i plan to buy a new board, processor, sound, box, at a computer show in toronto.


I currently have a pentium MMX 233MHZ on an old board, with a 14" monitor 1024X768 24bit, with a starfighter PCI video card.

ps.
does "wget" really output correct dl speeds? A couple times throughout my download it claimed i got 6.98 Mb/s and my ISP say i can only get a max of 3Mb/s. Although i do beleive it when it said i was getting between 150 and 940 kb/s from that ftp server, must be a fast connection (perhaps close to my location).check out thess screenshots

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality ]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality ]

voidmain:
Slow? I haven't noticed anything slow with it yet of course the Laptop I use most of the time is an 800Mhz w/512MB RAM and my desktop is an Athalon 1600 w/512MB RAM and a Geforce3. I suppose some of the effects could eat up CPU and can be turned off if they seem sluggish.

As far as wget speed reporting I can't imagine that it would not be accurate. I mean figuring download speed isn't exactly rocket science. Although there are many reasons that some files could transfer very fast. For instance, if your provider (or you) use a caching proxy server and your files were cached, wget would pull them from the local proxy rather than downloading from the other side of the internet again. Another advantage of using http over ftp. Calculate it yourself using the "time" command:

time wget http://www.somewhere.com/downloads/largefile

You should get a timing report back, divide the "real" number into the size of the file and you will have your answer. Also make sure you realize whether you are working with bits(b)/bytes(B)/kilobits(Kb)/kilobytes(KB)/megabit(Mb)/megabyte(MB) and convert to common units when comparing with other file transfer methods.

Of course to be really accurate you would have to subtract the amount of time it takes for wget to connect and disconnect from the server but for large files this would be insignificant.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page