Shao Zhang <shaoz_at_cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
} > I remembered when I was running fvwm, fvwm, fvwm-buttons, fvwm-pager
} > altogether is well over 2MB. So am I wrong or misunderstanding the
} > definition of "light weight"?
You also have to account for shared memory (or rather, count that kind
of memory less), as well as the lightness of your fvwm config. Using
a lot of pixmaps isn't going to help, for example.
I'm running fvwm2 (2.3.21), and here's the memory usage from top (look
at the top manpage for explanations of SIZE, RSS, and SHARE):
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
7780 viper 2 0 1172 1088 756 S 0 0.7 1.7 0:48 fvwm2
8261 viper 0 0 540 512 372 S 0 0.0 0.8 0:02 FvwmPager
8265 viper 0 0 376 288 184 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:00 FvwmIconMan
8259 viper 0 0 396 264 180 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:00 FvwmButtons
8260 viper 0 0 188 120 80 S 0 0.0 0.1 0:00 FvwmEvent
Even if you don't account for shared memory being, well, *shared*,
fvwm2 + pager + buttons adds up to a whopping total of 2108 kilobytes
of memory. If you don't want Buttons (Enlightenment does not provide
a Buttons, after all), you can thrive on less. The extra bells and
whistles for the iconmanager (which is *the* best icon manager I've
ever seen, across several variants of TWM and a bunch of other window
managers) and the event modules bring the total up to 2672 kB.
Notice I'm running extra bells and whistles, and it's still particularly
light. My setup is sparse and simple -- no icons except for mini icons
in the pager and those in the Buttons, simple gradients on window titles
and menus. Have got a ton of key bindings though (I really hate mice).
} > BTW, I thought sawfish is "light weight" too, after trying out, the
} > sawfish process plus the list interpreter all add up to 4.5MB. How is
} > that light weight?
Sawfish is lightweight for a window manager that is extremely, extremely
flexible (how more flexible can you get *without* an interpreter of some
sort running around, after all?).
If you really want lightweight, go check out wm2 and wmx. Both will
give you key bindings (changeable only at compile time, and only a
limited set), and will be particularly fast and very, very light. Heck,
there's also aewm, pwm, and larswm to consider, in the lightweight yet
focusing on one particular feature (pwm puts multiple windows into one
window frame. larswm automatically tiles) category.
} > Please clarify with my understanding...
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:01:33AM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
} Each window manager attempts to balance memory usage, cpu consumption,
} visual appearance, and features.
}
} Pick the one that provides the balance you want.
Dan said it best. :-) (For me, fvwm offers the best compromise between
memory/cpu usage, visual clarity, and flexibility. I've gone through over
ten or so different window managers. AfterStep, BlackBox, olwm, twm, ctwm,
vtwm included... been there, done that, got the config files.)
--
An Thi-Nguyen Le
|Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to
|see it tried on him personally.
| -- Abraham Lincoln
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Tue Nov 14 2000 - 11:33:42 GMT