Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- From: Joe Hart <j.hart@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 20:04:56 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brendan wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote:No, I do not have comparisons because I only used it very briefly. I
Masatran, R. Deepak wrote:
XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are basedGood question.
on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster
than Gnome?
It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and
Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO.
"Used to be faster" seems to mean that you have then and now comparisons.
Where do these comparisons live so I can take a peek?
should be a bit more careful in my statements. I will rephrase.
The older versions were much lighter than the current version in their
resource usage. However, the new version has many feature additions to
make it more functional, and therefore need the additional resources.
With modern computers the difference is negligible, but for a older
computer that has limited memory, there are better alternatives.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGRLBIiXBCVWpc5J4RArfMAJ4/pOFBWY6uUdBj3Z8qW175rHPglQCgt6cL
MuUS6KAcX2g8BGke2ArvmCs=
=V6Oo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- From: Brendan
- Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- References:
- XFCE, and Gnome
- From: Masatran, R. Deepak
- Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- From: Brendan
- XFCE, and Gnome
- Prev by Date: Re: fluxbox slit
- Next by Date: Re: fluxbox slit
- Previous by thread: Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- Next by thread: Re: XFCE, and Gnome
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
