>Hi,
>
>Anyone pls tell me how heavier the system resourses
>will suffer if I run sawmill wm versus icewm? My box
>only 35Mb RAM 100 Mhz CPU, ; icewm is good for all
>purpose (gnome compliant, light, nice looking and
>configure but not nice with netscape (see my last
>email :-) ). I have tested wmmaker but it is not fully
>gnome compliant.
>
>Regards, Steve
I would stay with icewm. I've got a 300 Mhz Celeron at home overclocked to 450
Mhz with 64Mb RAM and I notice a difference between icewm and sawmill. Although
it doesn't integrate as nicely as sawmill does (configuration in the gnome
control panel), it makes that up in speed.
Also, those little panels and applets of GNOME tend to eat up resources, so,
don't use them unless you need them!
I'd recommend trying each window manager for a day and come to your own
conclusions (try sawmill then icewm) and I bet you'll come to a similar
conclusion.
HTH,
Scott
