Re: efficiency of windows managers
- From: "Douglas A. Tutty" <dtutty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:46:39 -0400
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:50:35PM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
On 9/27/07, Manu Hack <manuhack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don't know about windowMaker, but you might try:
I have a general question which I got when trying out different
windows managers/desktop environments. When I try to use windowmaker
(I wanted to make my computer faster as it's getting old), it
certainly is fast for initialization. But after that when around
10-15 windows are opened and distributed in different workspaces, I
found moving around different workspaces and windows pretty slow (I
compared with KDE which I usually use.) and thus I still decided to
stick with KDE for the moment. Maybe the comparison is not fair as
KDE definitely needs longer time to initialize. But my question is,
is there a reason for that?
fluxbox
icewm
pekwm
fvwm2
You might find some pretty light, and some besides offering lots of
fun and good looking features... I use fluxbox and a machine with
512M main, and 64M ati-rage is performing pretty well...
I found that the litest is icewm. Works great on my P-II-133 with 64 MB
ram and on my 486DX4-100 with 32 MB ram. The 486 wouldn't run Etch so
it runs great with OpenBSD. Woody also runs great on it. Iceweasel
takes a long time to render.
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: efficiency of windows managers
- From: Amit Uttamchandani
- Re: efficiency of windows managers
- References:
- efficiency of windows managers
- From: Manu Hack
- Re: efficiency of windows managers
- From: Javier Vasquez
- efficiency of windows managers
- Prev by Date: Re: can pbzip2 run on stdout?
- Next by Date: Re: Tool for document management
- Previous by thread: Re: efficiency of windows managers
- Next by thread: Re: efficiency of windows managers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
