<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Globe Trotter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:itsme_410@yahoo.com">itsme_410@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks very much for your detailed e-mail! I am trying to live in a non-DE world, so I thought I would cast my net and see which of the four (FVWM, OB, FB, PekWM, or something else) I should consider.<br>
<br>
I use my desktop for almost everything but also for routine, quite heavy computation. I would therefore like to have the background processes to have low memory footprint and CPU usage if possible, while not giving up a whole lot of functionality.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>FWIW, no window manager will use significant CPU resources while you are not interacting with it, and things in the background will get swapped if a process wants to use more memory.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
That in a nutshell is what I am pursuing. I am thankful to the discussion so far.<br>
<br>
Best wishes!<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--- On Thu, 10/13/11, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella <<a href="mailto:jesus.guerrero.botella@gmail.com">jesus.guerrero.botella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> Unless something changed in the last few years (and I doubt<br>
> that) twm<br>
> is incredibly horrible when it comes to memory usage. It's<br>
> probably<br>
> suboptimal in cpu as well, but I never tested that.<br>
><br>
> About speed, it's hard to guess... It all depends on what<br>
> exactly we<br>
> measure. I bet fvwm and openbox are probably much faster<br>
> when it comes<br>
> to mapping windows. But that's only a part of managing<br>
> windows. A<br>
> window manager does a lot of tasks and benchmarks usually<br>
> look at<br>
> whatever their writer(s) want it to show about their<br>
> favourite WM.<br>
><br>
> In any case, twm can't do anything. There are much smaller<br>
> WMs that<br>
> have a much smaller memory footprint. Compile time options<br>
> also matter<br>
> here, and architecture. In the case of fvwm, and due to its<br>
> modular<br>
> nature, the user configuration matters *a whole lot*.<br>
> Running fvwm<br>
> without extra modules, without svg support, no background<br>
> and the<br>
> standard menu can be done below 1mb or ram, probably. But<br>
> that can<br>
> quickly grow into a few dozen mb's provided you are<br>
> creative enough.<br>
><br>
> The *boxes are probably somewhere between 1 and 4 mb, but<br>
> as said that<br>
> can greatly vary depending on a number of factors.<br>
><br>
> These numbers are what I remember from my own tests on an<br>
> amd64/x86<br>
> box a few years ago, using Gentoo.<br>
><br>
> Without knowing if the original poster is pursuing any<br>
> concrete info<br>
> or goal I can't really say anything more useful.<br>
><br>
> Cheers :)<br>
> --<br>
> Jesús Guerrero Botella<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> openbox mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:openbox@icculus.org">openbox@icculus.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/openbox" target="_blank">http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/openbox</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
openbox mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:openbox@icculus.org">openbox@icculus.org</a><br>
<a href="http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/openbox" target="_blank">http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/openbox</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>