| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:15:30 +0200 Karl Trygve Kalleberg |
| 2 |
<karltk@×××××××.no> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:49:57 -0600 |
| 5 |
> Collins Richey <erichey2@××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > So, then is xterm a resource hog? Aterm looks pretty, I doubt |
| 9 |
> that I |
| 10 |
> > could tell the difference in resource consumption. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> karltk 431 0.1 0.5 3412 1476 tty1 S 16:12 0:00 aterm |
| 13 |
> root 433 0.4 0.9 5140 2396 pts/4 S 16:12 0:00 xterm |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It is a well-known fact that xterm is a resource hog. In the above |
| 17 |
> "test", |
| 18 |
> xterm has a black background, nothing fancy at all, while aterm runs |
| 19 |
> a |
| 20 |
> tinted background (means that the root bitmap is visible as the |
| 21 |
> background |
| 22 |
> in aterm, but with a tint. As you can clearly see, the tint color is |
| 23 |
> blue |
| 24 |
> ;). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks, I'm convinced. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Collins Richey |
| 30 |
Denver Area |
| 31 |
gentoo_rc6 xfce+sylpheed |
Archives