Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Posted Feb 3, 2006 6:47 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell
In reply to: Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
Parent article: Openbox: A lightweight window manager (Linux.com)
xterm *heavier* than GNOME Terminal? Now that's humor...
gnome-terminal: RSS 13MB of 30MB total, starts in 624ms from warm cache.
konsole: RSS 16MB of 31MB in 570ms.
rxvt: RSS 1.9MB of 3.2MB in 21ms.
xterm: RSS 3.1MB of 5.6MB in 80ms.
Experience with machines under memory pressure suggests that gnome-terminal and konsole *need* their double-digit megabytes of RAM to function, whereas an xterm can do without most of its resident set if it's not using the scrollback buffer.
The scary thing is that xterm is the fastest of all of them in actual use.
xterm's crazy graphical terminal black magic is harmless unless it receives the necessary escape codes to activate it. rxvt is missing some of xterm's display update optimizations, so although rxvt starts sooner, it takes longer to scroll and uses more bandwidth for partial display updates.
IMHO rxvt's segfaulting bugs and missing features are not worth the 0.1% of system RAM and 60ms per terminal window that would be saved by using it instead of xterm. 13 years ago I came to the same conclusion about rxvt and xterm for the same reasons, even though both xterm and rxvt were half the size then that they are now.
Both xterm and rxvt are visibly faster than their GNOME and KDE counterparts even on modern hardware. On 3-year-old machines the newer applications are almost unusable. On 5-year-old machines the word "almost" can be dropped--it takes seconds for one of these to open even with a warm cache, and display update is slow enough that the latency annoys me while using vi.
to post comments)