<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><br><br>--- On <b>Tue, 10/11/11, Dana Jansens <i><dana@orodu.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Dana Jansens <dana@orodu.net><br>Subject: Re: [openbox] recommended WM using low resources?<br>To: "openbox mailing list" <openbox@icculus.org><br>Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:03 AM<br><br><div id="yiv892525820"><div class="yiv892525820gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Globe Trotter <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:itsme_410@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=itsme_410@yahoo.com">itsme_410@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="yiv892525820gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Sorry if this is considered to be a little OT, but is there a more recent study which has analysed Which WM is best in terms of low use of resources? OB/PekWM/BB/FB/FVWM/IceWM, etc?<br></blockquote><div><br></div>OK, let us try this again! How about WMs with similar capabilities?<br><br>Thanks!<br>T<br></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></table>