You are not logged in.

#1 2006-10-02 11:37:00

lumiwa
Member
Registered: 2005-12-26
Posts: 712

Desktop memory usage

Offline

#2 2006-10-02 15:57:33

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: Desktop memory usage

this was posted on planet archlinux a while back


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#3 2006-10-02 16:31:16

lumiwa
Member
Registered: 2005-12-26
Posts: 712

Re: Desktop memory usage

dolby wrote:

this was posted on planet archlinux a while back

Sorry...I missed it  :oops:

Offline

#4 2006-10-02 17:26:10

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: Desktop memory usage

no pictures? sad

lol

Offline

#5 2006-10-03 13:45:53

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Desktop memory usage

See what one of Xfce developers thinks about these tests: http://blog.xfce.org/?p=176


to live is to die

Offline

#6 2006-10-04 21:40:13

toxic
Member
Registered: 2006-06-05
Posts: 117

Re: Desktop memory usage

Too much text tongue But the tables gave at least a hint of the different wm's memory usage. It seems I've underestimated Xfce a little bit according to those tests.
Naturally, there's more then just measuring the amount of memory allocated by the WM. If that extra memory means applications will load/work faster then  it'll probably be worth it.

I could also notice they didn't perform this with an Arch install, since I have somewhere around 35MB RAM allocated when starting X + Fluxbox.

Offline

#7 2006-10-04 23:05:38

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Desktop memory usage

I don't like the methodology of these tests.
It has some good points, but there are also some bad.
However it was an interesting reading for me.


to live is to die

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB