patrick295767
December 28th, 2006, 08:15 PM
Hi,
I made some trials with configurations on mainly two very light weight windows manager: fvwm and openbox.
(I dont talk about blackbox & icewm & fluxbox & sawfish that are consuming more, too much waste for my old pc (64 MB))
(and far away kde, gnome, and xfce)
Results are:
- Fvwm as default takes " exactly" the same memory as Openbox.
As soon as you start to configure your Fvwm, the ram-weight is increasing and and ...
for same "windows decorations" configuration and aspect, openbox can take even less memory than fvwm ! (translucent takes a bit in ram) Openbox is slightly lighter than Fvwm, but has no pager... Fvwm can make use of scripts for making buttons to your work/play environment.
I think they made great job the Openbox programming Team with the minimalist decorations & still beautiful enough !
The lightest windows manager of Linux is Tinywm and is in your repos.
(jwm exists too)
===
I made some trials with configurations on mainly two very light weight windows manager: fvwm and openbox.
(I dont talk about blackbox & icewm & fluxbox & sawfish that are consuming more, too much waste for my old pc (64 MB))
(and far away kde, gnome, and xfce)
Results are:
- Fvwm as default takes " exactly" the same memory as Openbox.
As soon as you start to configure your Fvwm, the ram-weight is increasing and and ...
for same "windows decorations" configuration and aspect, openbox can take even less memory than fvwm ! (translucent takes a bit in ram) Openbox is slightly lighter than Fvwm, but has no pager... Fvwm can make use of scripts for making buttons to your work/play environment.
I think they made great job the Openbox programming Team with the minimalist decorations & still beautiful enough !
The lightest windows manager of Linux is Tinywm and is in your repos.
(jwm exists too)
===