Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17
Originally Posted by geniuz Ofcourse it would, KDE uses the most recources, after that comes gnome, and after that probably XFCE XFCE is only slightly less heavy than the other ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Córdoba (Spain)
    Posts
    1,513

    Quote Originally Posted by geniuz View Post
    Ofcourse it would, KDE uses the most recources, after that comes gnome, and after that probably XFCE
    XFCE is only slightly less heavy than the other two, and the other two can be more or less heavy weight depending on the way you configure them. Gnome looks slicker, but it certainly is not any lighter in terms of ram usage and cpu usage these days. Some other people tell the tale the other way: gnome is much heavier ... blah blah. But it all depends a lot on the applications you are going to use. There's no easy answer to this question.

    I've been booting kde for many years with a ram usage of around 60-70 mb. The ram usage only depends on how much you like useless things and eyecandy.

    IMHO if you really want speed and low resources (say less than 10% ram usage if you have 1 GB), you should got for fluxbox or something, and also forget about compiz...that will eat resources. Compiz doesn't work with fluxbox anyway.
    Yep, a standalone wm have the potential to be much lighter. But, ultimately, is the applications you use, and not the desktop/wm, which defines the ram usage on the bigger part. For example, if you use amarok and firefox under fluxbox, you are going to waste much more ram than if you use mocp and konqueror or opera under kde.

    I agree that compiz is not for you if you intend to save ram. Compositors take loads of ram. They have their advantages in terms of cpu usage if used on a smart way, though.

    Regards

  2. #12
    Linux User IsaacKuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by i92guboj View Post
    Even a full blown build of fvwm is lighter in ram than icewm even was, and fvwm is much more featureful and functional than icewm will ever be.
    How much lighter? Note that the theme matters; my favorite theme, IceCrack2, is a lot lighter in RAM than other themes.

    Also, what functionality does fvwm have that icewm lacks? One example of functionality important to me is that applet icons for Gtk/GNOME apps like pidgin and nm-applet are fully functional in IceWM (they are not functional in some other WMs, like JWM).

    To me, the most important "functionality" of a WM is that software is fully functional and the WM doesn't get in the way of things. Lack of functionality, to me, is something like pidgin's taskbar applet being missing (e.g. JWM).
    Isaac Kuo, ICQ 29055726 or Yahoo mechdan

  3. #13
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Córdoba (Spain)
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    How much lighter? Note that the theme matters; my favorite theme, IceCrack2, is a lot lighter in RAM than other themes.
    I know that. I just wanted to state that it's not a good thing to make absolute statements. Fvwm can run with full features on around 4mb. But it can be as heavy as you like, just like icewm. My intention was just to demonstrate that icewm is not the absolute winner when talking about lightness. It all depends on what features, themes, etc are you using. If you compare features vs. weight, I don't think that there's nothing even close to fvwm. If you just consider weight, I am sure that others like ratpoison, dwm or wmii are even lighter in terms of ram usage, and none of icewm or fvwm could ever beat that. I guess that more than one wm in this list is lighter than those two:

    Code:
    aewm
    aewm++
    awesome
    blackbox
    ctwm
    dwm
    evilwm
    flwm
    fvwm
    ion
    larswm
    lwm
    openbox
    pekwm
    plwm
    ratpoison
    treewm
    twm
    vtwm
    windowlab
    wm2
    wmii
    And you can guess that there are many more around

    Also, what functionality does fvwm have that icewm lacks? One example of functionality important to me is that applet icons for Gtk/GNOME apps like pidgin and nm-applet are fully functional in IceWM (they are not functional in some other WMs, like JWM).
    Fvwm has a plethora of proper modules, it can interface easily with C and perl natively, and scripting in bash, python, or whatever language can be used as well. Fvwm is scriptable, it can do lots of things that icewm could never do. It also has a proper programming language, FvwmScript. You can easily build a kuake using any regular term, for example. You can do so with any program, not just terminal emulators.

    The scripting capabilities of fvwm have no limits, just your imagination.

    The tray icons capability is irrelevant. Lots of standalone programs can do it, and fvwm can swallow any of these info one module called fvwmbuttons. By the way, it also swallow nicely any taskbar, panel, applications (conky, xosview.......), and window maker applets. More versatility is impossible.

    To me, the most important "functionality" of a WM is that software is fully functional and the WM doesn't get in the way of things. Lack of functionality, to me, is something like pidgin's taskbar applet being missing (e.g. JWM).
    Fvwm can do whatever you want. It's not trivial to configure it, though so if you want it to work out-of-the-box, I advise you not even to try it. You can get an idea at HOW configurable it is by just looking at the length of the man page:

    FVWM - Man page - fvwm

    Icewm is much simpler. Not worse, nor better, just different. For you it can be much better, for me configurability beyond limits and scriptability is a good thing. Each one has his/her own needs, and plurality is always a good thing. Fvwm can also be used in a simple way, like icewm, and can even emulate it if you wish it that way.

    Note that, the above man page, is just for the fvwm core. Fvwm includes lots of modules, and each one has its own man page (though this is the largest one).

    Anyway, it's all about the needs of the moment. I am no longer using fvwm, since I migrated to xmonad I am not looking back since it's the only wm that really supports xinerama (regardless of what others claim).

    Note also that I am probably highly biased in favour of fvwm, so just bear with me hehehe.

    Cheers

  4. #14
    Linux User IsaacKuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by i92guboj View Post
    The tray icons capability is irrelevant. Lots of standalone programs can do it, and fvwm can swallow any of these info one module called fvwmbuttons.
    What's an example of a standalone program that can do it? How heavy is it?

    I'm sorry, but the ability to integrate tray icons or at least have them visible/accessable is a deal-killer for me.
    Anyway, it's all about the needs of the moment. I am no longer using fvwm, since I migrated to xmonad I am not looking back since it's the only wm that really supports xinerama (regardless of what others claim).
    Wait. First you claim that fvwm can do ANYTHING. But then you switch your story and give a concrete example of something fvwm can't do.

    I don't know what level of xinerama support you demand. I know that I was satisfied with IceWM's xinerama support when I was using a triple monitor xinerama setup.

    I'm personally not interested in fancy scripting of a WM. I program plenty of scripts, but I'd rather they work in ANY WM. So maybe I have a custom script for opening up aterm exactly how I like. I put it into a simple bash script, and then include a simple taskbar icon link to the bash script in whatever DE's or WMs I want to use.

    What's important to me is basic (to me) functionality, like taskbar applets or xinerama support, or ability to "play nice" with fullscreen gmplayer/xine.
    Isaac Kuo, ICQ 29055726 or Yahoo mechdan

  5. #15
    Linux User IsaacKuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    383
    Oh, BTW, the amount of RAM IceWM used when I was testing it out was about 4megs. I'm not sure the exact amount, because I was doing a "realistic" test including a loaded aterm.

    Or did you mean that a computer with 4megs of RAM could run fvwm? On my test system (32megs of RAM), my RAM consumption was over 8megs just getting to a console login. I didn't start with a completely stripped OS, though. I had some bloat in there because at the time I didn't know the Debian "base" software suite was not necessary.
    Isaac Kuo, ICQ 29055726 or Yahoo mechdan

  6. #16
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Córdoba (Spain)
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    What's an example of a standalone program that can do it? How heavy is it?
    trayer, stalonetray, peksystray... there are many more. The size should be a few kb on most cases. Those programs just pick the icons and reparents them to a simple window, as far as I can tell. Never bothered to investigate deeper, though.

    Wait. First you claim that fvwm can do ANYTHING. But then you switch your story and give a concrete example of something fvwm can't do.
    No wm can do ANYTHING. Relax, no one is paying me for defending fvwm. If you prefer icewm, then it's clearly better for you, no need to fight about that

    I don't know what level of xinerama support you demand. I know that I was satisfied with IceWM's xinerama support when I was using a triple monitor xinerama setup.
    I want to be able to use a given workspace of may choice at any anbitrary screen, and get the contents adequately resized when I put a workspace on a given screen. Only xmonad does this, as far as I know. Neither icewm nor fvwm can do that. The purpose of this is to be able to leave some stuff on a monitor while I change workspace on the other, and viceversa, without having to be using tricks like stiking/unsticking windows and things like that. Xmonad handles all of this nicely. Until I found it, the only way to do this was to use a non-xinerama setup, with two separate X servers which by all means is a resource waste, and cuts down interoperability between the two screens on a radical way.

    As said, there's no perfect wm for everyone, and plurality is good.

  7. #17
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Córdoba (Spain)
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    Oh, BTW, the amount of RAM IceWM used when I was testing it out was about 4megs. I'm not sure the exact amount, because I was doing a "realistic" test including a loaded aterm.

    Or did you mean that a computer with 4megs of RAM could run fvwm? On my test system (32megs of RAM), my RAM consumption was over 8megs just getting to a console login. I didn't start with a completely stripped OS, though. I had some bloat in there because at the time I didn't know the Debian "base" software suite was not necessary.
    No need to fight over this either. As I already said, there are lots of variables involved, and my only purpose was to demonstrate that the following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham View Post

    And yes, IceWM is the absolute lightest yet usable environment, and for all practical perposes, THE lightest. It looks good enough to use, and compliments KDE rather well when needed.
    Is, to say the least, inaccurate and completely biased. But, to tell the truth, when talking about wm's, everyone, including the writer of this post, is biased.

    For the rest, I agree that icewm is a very good window manager.

    EDIT: And what's more important to me, it's got a very stable code base.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •