Fluxbox VS IceWMForum: X and Fluxbox Topic: Fluxbox VS IceWM started by: Sp33dstar Posted by Sp33dstar on Mar. 14 2006,05:07
heyi would like to know, what do you think about WM, which are creating for optimize & fast work. which one is fatest one? which one eats less CPU? which one eats less RAM? which one is more stable? which one is more configurable? which one is more compatible with KDE/GNOME apps? do you know more good WMs like this, then Fluxbox and Icewm? Posted by cbagger01 on Mar. 14 2006,06:44
In my experience, fluxbox is faster than icewmbut both are very fast and light wms compared to the competition. Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 14 2006,15:47
What are you comparing? Fluxbox 0.1.14 with the latest IceWM? If so, fluxbox is the winnar in all categories except configurability.Comparing Fluxbox devel with latest IceWm, I'd say the comparisons are much closer. Flux devel is still smaller and uses less ram. I haven't tracked the cpu usage, so i couldn't say. For stability, I've noticed a few minor glitches in IceWM and one or 2 in Flux devel, so they're about equal there. Either one will run both KDE and gnome applications, as long as KDE or Gnome is not itself required to be running...this is the case with any window manager. As a guess, I'd say both are about equal in what they can configure, but the process is a bit different with some things. IceWM's modifier keys seem to be hard-coded, so that's a count against, but its themeing capabilites are beyond those of fluxbox. EDIT: I forgot to mention that a default IceWM installation has more dependencies than Fluxbox, so that mihgt be something to consider. If your main concern is size and speed, there are other window managers that beat both, of course. TWM, EvilWM, Ratpoison are all smaller, but the last two are not user friendly in the point-and-click sense. |