You are not logged in.

#1 2005-06-10 23:04:48

kakabaratruskia
Member
From: Santiago, Chile
Registered: 2003-08-24
Posts: 596

WM speeds.

This came up on osnews.
http://www.rasterman.com/

It's unbelievable how slow xfwm is. I've been using it since more than a year, and I had not realized, but it completely sucks. I used a windows PC a week ago, and was amazed how fast and responsive it was, being a lot worse than mine in hardware. So I decided to try xfce4.2 with e17 and sawfish, and the difference is incredible. (e17 just flies, but it's not very compatible with the rest of xfce)


And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though?
They're all resting down in Cornwall
writing up their memoirs for a paper-back edition
of the Boy Scout Manual.

Offline

#2 2005-06-10 23:13:34

ozar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2005-02-18
Posts: 1,681

Re: WM speeds.

That's some interesting info.  I've tried most of those WMs but for some reason, they don't necessarily feel on my box the way they performed according to the graphs given.  Weird...  smile


oz

Offline

#3 2005-06-10 23:43:48

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,615
Website

Re: WM speeds.

Rasterman acknowledges the intent at the end of the page, and that the benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt. If you read it, you will see what he is talking about, and the reasons for the benchmarks.

I bet people will run with the ball on this one anyway, without reading what he wrote about the benchmarks..

I do find it curious that he is working on optimization before the thing is even done. I recognize the need for being resource conscious during devel, but optimizing as you go? Seems like bad news to me....

Still, I hope this causes a stir and generates interest in making current wm's a bit more performant.


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#4 2005-06-11 00:29:00

kakabaratruskia
Member
From: Santiago, Chile
Registered: 2003-08-24
Posts: 596

Re: WM speeds.

I don't know if the benchmark is very pricise, but I'm sure, that my desktop is a lot more responsive if I use metacity instead of xfwm. It's an amazing difference. Opening rox with xfwm took like a second. With metacity it's immediate.


And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though?
They're all resting down in Cornwall
writing up their memoirs for a paper-back edition
of the Boy Scout Manual.

Offline

#5 2005-06-11 01:38:06

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: WM speeds.

kakabaratruskia: the speed in which it takes a program to load is irrelevant to the windowmanager.

What his tests did were seeing how many windows it could get the windomanager to map a second, mapping a window afaik involves, creating drawing the window to the screen. His test tests how quickly and how many the window manager can do.

 >_sleep 2 && ./wm_torture -t map_throughput -wm ion3                                                                           (~/wm_torture)
Results for: ion3 - Unknown
Test:        map_throughput
             WIN/SEC 276.162629
 >_sleep 2 && ./wm_torture -t map_throughput -wm ion3                                                                           (~/wm_torture)
Results for: ion3 - Unknown
Test:        map_throughput
             WIN/SEC 364.811023

beat that.
interestingly, ion3 beats them all, and you cant put it down to hardware, as I have Pentium M 1.4ghz running at 600mhz, intel integrated graphics and 512mb ram, compared to his P4 3.4. though I am running Xorg, him Xfree 4.3.
iphitus

Offline

#6 2005-06-11 02:18:32

kakabaratruskia
Member
From: Santiago, Chile
Registered: 2003-08-24
Posts: 596

Re: WM speeds.

m... maybe I'm crazy... but I'm almost sure that this happens. Even now, if I test the two wm's, I feel the difference is obvious. Could someone try this, so that I  don't end up like a lying jerk in the forum?....

Anyway... maybe it was all wishful thinking...  :cry:


And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though?
They're all resting down in Cornwall
writing up their memoirs for a paper-back edition
of the Boy Scout Manual.

Offline

#7 2005-06-16 19:57:29

droog
Member
Registered: 2004-11-18
Posts: 877

Re: WM speeds.

I agree with you kakabaratruskia, I have been using fvwm for a long time now and opening rox takes from 1-2 seconds, I need to trim down my fvwm2rc.. last week i decided to install openbox because i havent used it in so long.
Now when i open Rox, there isn't any delay. It opens instantly using openbox, and other apps that i use everyday are noticably faster too.

So the wm must have something to do with how fast apps open in some way.
I'm not trying to make openbox look good, i dont really like it. but it made me realize that i need to clean up fvwm.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB