Honestly I feel like Linux was faster and more stable back then.

>>58604795
do you mean the kernel?

probably is true then since it was much smaller back then

>>58604795
KDE3 was the last good KDE.

>>58604825
Seconded.

Amarok was awesome before they went 2.0 too

>>58604825
KDE5 isn't TOO bad compared to 4, especially if you're on openSUSE.

>>58604813
You can always recompile the kernel to suit your needs.

>>58604795
Linux what? Kernel? Distro? DE? Your img is a KDE DE which requires the most resources. Try XFCE or Mate.

>>58605371
>st resources. Try XFCE or Mate.
I'm trying out XFCE now. Pretty slick. My complaint is transparency seems to be broken with conky though. Works fine in GNOME.

>>58605353
Agreed!, Also remember there were much fewer hardware back then too!

Less Hardware = Smaller Kernel, and Easier to program for.

Recompile to minimize the size and take out the lines of code that you don't need.

>>58604795
Install KDE 1 (some guy ported it for KDE's anniversary): http://www.heliocastro.info/?p=291

>ICQ

Depends on what, but we didn't have flashy shit bogging things down, no wonder.

What I like the most about older systems, despite the looks, is that they really made good use of tiny resolutions. They could fit quite a few elements in there. Nowadays with all the silly shit, 1920x1080 seems rather small for working with stuff. It doesn't make much sense. Back then I imagined a resolution like this to have so much space that I could fit anything on it.

>>58604795
>XMMS
MUH DICK

things tend to be more stable with 0 drivers

>>58607831
it's called material design aka wasted space

>>58607607
How does one patch KDE2 under FreeBSD?