fvwm vs gnome memory consumption
From: rez (google_news_at_mail.requestfinder.com)
Date: 09/22/03
- Next message: ray: "Re: THOSE ANNOYING POP UP MESSAGES."
- Previous message: ANTant_at_zimage.com: "Re: Unable to install ATI Radeon 9800 Linux driver v3.2.5"
- Next in thread: Hactar: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply:(deleted message) Hactar: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply: Wiseguy: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply: mjt: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 21 Sep 2003 18:36:31 -0700
No one seems to talk about how _much_ of a difference there is between
fvwm and gnome. When I do a "top" (running gnome) I see X using:
SIZE=26580 RSS=17M SHARE=1604. How much can I expect to gain from
using fvwm?
Thanks in advance for any help.
- Next message: ray: "Re: THOSE ANNOYING POP UP MESSAGES."
- Previous message: ANTant_at_zimage.com: "Re: Unable to install ATI Radeon 9800 Linux driver v3.2.5"
- Next in thread: Hactar: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply:(deleted message) Hactar: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply: Wiseguy: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Reply: mjt: "Re: fvwm vs gnome memory consumption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]