Re: AS: Metro vs XFree?

Rob Hoyle (robho@ebicom.net)
Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:20:44 -0500 (CDT)


On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, David Taylor wrote:

> I know this may be a little bit of a religious issue... However, I have
> to know... I'm a performance freak (eg, I profile my Uni assignments,
> then tweak and optimise their performance).
> 
> Has anybody compared the performance of AfterStep (or any WM for that
> matter) under Metro-X and under XFree?  If so, I'd love to know the
> results.  Have any of the people on the development team noticed
> performance/stability issues under _any_ of the X-servers?
> 
Comparing window managers is a silly thing to do...
There are a couple reasons...
#1 - If you use a Window Manager, You are running X, and you are not
"That much" of a performance freak. Window managers are GUIs, they are not
intended to be sleek programs that dont use any resources. They have
become smaller and smaller, and this is good, but they are not something
that a true performance freak would approve of..
#2 - If you ran Afterstep the way I do, with no Wharf, no winlist, no
zharf, and a tiny lil pager...every background solid black; you would
notice that its going to run a lot faster and more stable than any other 
window manager when you turn on some of its "tricks." This is the case in
reverse also. (Note: I dont run it so stripped for performance, I like the
way it looks)
#3 -  A window manager is only as stable as what you are doing while using
it. For instance, if you run E, and you have 3 different solid java apps
running, its not going to be all that stable/responsive. If you run
Afterstep, and have 3 solid java apps running, the same thing applies.
It has been my experience that all WMs are as stable as the person who has
configured them.

Just my thoughts.

Rob



--
   WWW:   http://www.afterstep.org/
   FTP:   ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
   MAIL:  http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html