Re: Small footprint window manager
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > > On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Maybe I made mistake before, but its 16MB (no further upgrade
> > > >possible).
> > >
> > > FWIW, I've successfully run X (3.3.6) on a P75 w/16MB RAM (2.2 kernel,
> > > glibc) using IceWM. So long as you don't run any bloatware (Gnome/KDE,
> > > Office suites, etc), this should be more than up to the task.
> >
> > I currently run X (4.1.0) on a P100 with 16M RAM and a 2.4 kernel. I
> > haven't made a final decision yet on my window manager (an experiment
> > with Enlightenment was a _big_ miskate), but it runs alot faster for me
> > when all I use X for is to hold a dozen xterms, and then use them to
> > hold non-X programs (ftp in one, mutt in another, links, vim, and a few
> > other programs).
>
> Why not just use more than the standard 6 virtual consoles? That
> would be _much_ more memory efficient than X 4.1.0.
The standard 6 are already in use for other stuff (and yes, I do know
about ^Z), and I need X anyway to connect to a proxy.
> Also, 75 & 100MHz Pentia are significantly faster than a 386/33,
Guess what I'm using as a terminal...
> and that must count for something, even if the swap files _are_
> getting seriously excersied.
The swapping has turned this system into a cron-operated alarmclock.
--
Seneca
seneca-cunningham@rogers.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: