Thu Jan 8 00:00:11 PST 2004
In an attempt to kindle discussion over something other than GNOME for a
while, I am posting the contents of a post I just made to colm.
I was recently curious about a bit of common wisdom in *nix land. That
TWM and FVWM were "lightweight" windowmanagers, compared to their
brethren such as Afterstep and such.
So I set out and ran a little test. I set up a testuser, called
tesbunny, on my machine, and started a GUI session from the console,
with each of the window managers I have installed, and ran top, to find
their memory usage. I then compared them.
In the cases of windowm managers like WindowMaker, which have several
extra bits you can hang off them for functionality, (the Dockapps in
WindowManager being the prime example) I ignored those extra bits, this
is only a test of the WM resource uses themselves. In some cases, I
compare windowmanagers with different levels of functionality, so bear
that in mind. The number I used for comparison, was the one that shows
up under ps, the column labled VSZ, which is the total amount of virtual
memory used by the process. It's not perfect, but it's a place to start.
WindowManager VSZ (K bytes)
I must admit, I was a bit appalled by Metacity and Sawfish, but those
are the numbers I found.
Not sure what use these numbers are, other than flame fests, and
"mine is better than yours" stuff, but I was curious. For what it's
worth, my favourite wm, is WindowMaker. Although I am using GNOME with
Sawfish for now, to play with GNOME, perhaps I'll try WindowMaker with
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040108/ab962419/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists