Very Computer

Is this memory usage normal with KDE?  Why so heavy?
It is nice but I am not going to continue to swap out
on even small problems just to have a task bar like
Windows 95.  What other "nice" window managers
exist with the same functionality but less in terms of
system drain.  Any references to memory usage for the
common window managers?

Thanks for the info.
Please respond via email and the newsgroup if possible.

Thanks,
R Haynes

Interesting timing, I have been looking at the various window managers
and the amounts of RAM and CPU share that they demand.  Whatever you do,
if you are concerned about saving resources, do not use gnome with
enlightenment.  This is one of the standard setups for RedHat and
Mandrake's newer 2.2.x kernel distributions.  This combo will drain
memory to the point of crashing X.

Actually, in comparison with Afterstep or FVWM95, on my machine KDE is
actually fairly competitive memory wise.  With any of the mentioned
window managers, top reports about 25MB to X11 alone.  Gnome takes up at
least 35MB on top of that, but one or two windows in KDE adds only
15-20MB.  Afterstep adds 15MB to X.  Of course these are going to be
different for any other machine - but with only 32MB RAM and 64MB swap
KDE does fine on my box.

Ryan T. Rhea

One of the most efficient non-fvwm window managers that I've used is
WindowMaker.  According to their web site, one of the objectives of
the WindowMaker project was to keep memory usage to a minimum.  It
only uses 3.5 meg with no open windows and 4 virtual desktops.  The
clip is very functional and works well in place of the Gnome/KDE
"start" bars.

Tom
--

 12:06am  up 20:41,  2 users,  load average: 0.27, 0.37, 0.40
58 processes: 55 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states:  3.8% user,  6.6% system,  0.0% nice, 89.9% idle
Mem:   63032K av,  61728K used,   1304K free,  28780K shrd,   1260K buff
Swap:  64224K av,  16228K used,  47996K free                 19360K cached

  PID USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT  LIB %CPU %MEM   TIME COMMAND
12298 zlatko     0   0  1056 1056   760 S       0  0.0  1.6   0:04 icewm

That's with one xterm, Free Agent & Notepad under wine, Netscape

Thomas
--
=---        Thomas Zajic aka ZlatkO ThE GoDFatheR, Vienna/Austria        ---=
=--   "It is not easy to cut through a human head with a hacksaw." M.C.   --=
=--   Posted with Free Agent 1.11/32 running on Linux 2.0.37/Wine-990226  --=
=---        Spam-proof e-mail: thomas(DOT)zajic(AT)teleweb(DOT)at        ---=

This looks interesting

http://www.xfce.org/

  8:54am  up 1 day, 20:27,  8 users,  load average: 0.27, 0.12, 0.03
79 processes: 77 sleeping, 1 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 10.0% user,  1.7% system, 11.5% nice, 88.5% idle
Mem:   63448K av,  60932K used,   2516K free,  33532K shrd,   6368K buff
Swap:  51404K av,  20272K used,  31132K free                 16284K cached

  PID USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT  LIB %CPU %MEM   TIME COMMAND
11380 root      19   0 13108   9M  1004 S       0  8.4 16.1  62:21 X
16657 tp         0   0  6224 6016   904 S       0  0.0  9.4   8:31 tkdesksh
22889 tp         0   0  3656 3656  1952 S       0  0.0  5.7   0:02 xfce

One interesting thing I noticed is the xscreensavers run nearly twice as
fast now ?

Another, is until my son started using Netscape remotely of this box last
night, my swap was a consistant 3.5% for 2 days, whereas under Fvwm2 its
always around 40%.

terry
--

   My Computer is powered by GNU-LINUX, and has been  
 up 1 day 19 hours 31 minutes
........ 'Sapere aude'  (Immanuel Kant, 1784) ........