Re: AS: Metro vs XFree?

David Taylor (n9506769@garbo.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:50:33 +1000


Umm, Rob, you *completely* misunderstood my question... wa-a-a-a-y off
what I was asking!  :-)

No disrespect intended but I thought even the Subject would have
summarised my question succinctly enough.  Apparently, I was wrong.  I
will word it simpler and slightly differently:

How does the performance of AfterStep under XFree compare to one of the
commercial X-servers.  

For example: 
* AS & XFree vs. AS & Metro-X, or 
* AS & XFree vs. AS & Accelerated-X, or
* AS & Metro-X vx. AS & Accelerated-X 
* ... etcetera, etcetera ...

I'm sure you'll understand my question now.

It is related to the fact that different X-servers will handle some
things slightly differently internally.  However, AfterStep makes use of
the same features across different X-servers.  The features, being
implemented differently, may or may not have an effect on the
performance of AfterStep. 

I'm sure the developers will know what I mean and what I meant.  Can one
of the developers offer some insight?

> > 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?

See: I'm asking about different *X-Servers*.

> Comparing window managers is a silly thing to do...

I am *NOT* comparing window managers.  Re-read my original post.  I was
talking about the performance difference of AS when compared across
different X-servers.  The few words that might have thrown you were in
my statement that I also weclomed examples of other window managers...
"or any WM for that matter".  Maybe that was what threw you?

> "That much" of a performance freak.

I didn't say hardware performance freak.  I like the software that I use
to be as fast as possible considering its features.  ie, I want to use
an X-server that is as fast as possible but provides all the necessary
features still.

> Window managers are GUIs, they are not
> intended to be sleek programs that dont use any resources.

I agree.  And, of course, I never said they were intended to use no
resources.  However, they should be sleek, and I think AS is getting
there.  :-)

> They have
> become smaller and smaller, and this is good, but they are not something
> that a true performance freak would approve of..

But, eventually, they should be... taking into account its features of
course.

> Just my thoughts.

Quite welcome and thank you for them... though they weren't directly
relevant to what I was asking, but they should be useful for any newbies
lurking on the list.  Had I not already known what you stated it would
have been very informative.

I'm sorry if I badly worded my original post.

Essentially, I have two X-servers: XFree and Metro-X.  I am trying to
decide which one to use.  And I was asking a question that only the
developers could answer, or someone with a lot of spare time to test the
exact same configurations of AfterStep under different X-servers.

Briefly ;-)
===========

Has anyone compared AS under different X-servers?  If so, what
observations can you make from that?

-- 
Regards,
David Taylor

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