Posted by: Administrator
on February 03, 2006 10:43 AM
I agree with you that Fluxbox is one really lightweight window manager with quite a few capabilities. I use it when I am resource constrained or I want to use something different for a while.
I'm like several of the other respondents. I really like XFCE as a moderately full featured desktop manager which consumes only slightly more resources than a window manager, but offers considerably more capabilities than just a window manager.
I will have to look at Openbox, though. If it comes from Blackbox/Fluxbox lineage, then I know that it is tight and lightweight. If it is also a standards compliant window manager, then it has that over Blackbox and Fluxbox.
Concerning your Emacs metaphor, I have to question that. Way back in the eighties when I first started using Emacs, it was quite a heavy beast to run on those machines. But since about the mid nineties, it has run well on systems I've used running Windows, UNIX, Linux, and even VMS.
I was checking memory consumption of some programs I was using at work on an XP system. Firefox and OpenOffice were two of the biggest pigs on the system, each consuming between 50,000 and 80,000 KB, that's 50-80 MB each, if I am reading it right. Emacs, in contrast, was using just over 2,000 KB, or around 2 MB - not bad. On the Linux system I am using now, my Emacs has a virtual memory footprint of around 12 MB and a real size of about 8 MB. Big, but not bad, and not anywhere near the largest consumer of resources.
If you want tiny, levee, a vi clone, is REALLY small and tight.
Firefox and Mozilla are among the largest consumers of memory no matter which platform they run on. They consume more than any editor or window manager, probably more than the top three combined!
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Another lightweight WM...
Posted by: Administrator on February 03, 2006 10:43 AMI'm like several of the other respondents. I really like XFCE as a moderately full featured desktop manager which consumes only slightly more resources than a window manager, but offers considerably more capabilities than just a window manager.
I will have to look at Openbox, though. If it comes from Blackbox/Fluxbox lineage, then I know that it is tight and lightweight. If it is also a standards compliant window manager, then it has that over Blackbox and Fluxbox.
Concerning your Emacs metaphor, I have to question that. Way back in the eighties when I first started using Emacs, it was quite a heavy beast to run on those machines. But since about the mid nineties, it has run well on systems I've used running Windows, UNIX, Linux, and even VMS.
I was checking memory consumption of some programs I was using at work on an XP system. Firefox and OpenOffice were two of the biggest pigs on the system, each consuming between 50,000 and 80,000 KB, that's 50-80 MB each, if I am reading it right. Emacs, in contrast, was using just over 2,000 KB, or around 2 MB - not bad. On the Linux system I am using now, my Emacs has a virtual memory footprint of around 12 MB and a real size of about 8 MB. Big, but not bad, and not anywhere near the largest consumer of resources.
If you want tiny, levee, a vi clone, is REALLY small and tight.
Firefox and Mozilla are among the largest consumers of memory no matter which platform they run on. They consume more than any editor or window manager, probably more than the top three combined!
#