On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:45:20PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 00:10 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:57:27PM -0500, Joel Ewy wrote: > > > > > > For what it's worth, fvwm would probably still fall under the category of > > > a Window Manager rather than a full-blown desktop environment like KDE or > > > Gnome. But yes, it does do pretty well on low-resource computers. I > > > still use fvwm-95 on an old '486 laptop with 20M RAM running RedHat 5.1 > > > and I suspect it would also be a good choice on a '68k machine. > > > > I am using fvwm on my 2GHz Athlon and P4 machines with 1GB RAM each. Do you > > have to switch to a memory wasting wm once you have a faster machine? fvwm > > rocks, unfortunately the current version in testing does not like my config > > anymore that I started writing 10 years ago. So maybe I have to switch to > > gnome, which already can do a few things, that fvwm can do, or start reading > > about what changed in the new versions. Until I decide, I am keeping an old > > fvwm version around. > > What are your primary apps?
xemacs, tex, octave, R, gcc, bash, perl, mozilla, wajig, xmms, mutt, openoffice, geda, simh, ... Actually, I have lots more installed, my /usr partition is 4GB, and it is 90% full again. I should use 6 or maybe 10GB next time. Christian
