fourdan at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 13:22:51 CEST 2008
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wonder why xfwm4 is different of Metacity.
> I have found that both takes mostly the same amount of RAM, and does seems
> to be really faster.
Well, speed of a window manager is definitely the hardest thing to
measure, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusions (please
don't tell me about torture-wm which is one of the most stupid
benchmark I have ever seen).
I believe xfwm4 is faster than metacity because of the way it's coded
and how redraws are done. That may not show depending on the hardware
you use though.
> They both have mostly the same theme functionalities but are not compatible
> due to language conventions.
Well, I really don't understand what you mean here...
> xfwm4 doesnt have any minimizing animation or any other.
Well, it's a waste of time and resources, I think, especially if you
are refering to the ugly box animation, reminds me of window 3. YMMV
though and you're perfectly entitled to you opinion ;)
> I am using openbox now, because it is much faster than xfwm4, more easy to
> configure with obconf, and have a great number of themes which integrates
> well, and also it haves some minimum animation when minimizing apps.
I do not know about openbox (i am not interested in the numerous
blackbox derivatives anyway), but xfwm4 ships with 96 themes by
default, not counting the themes from www.xfce-look.org. But is that
really a point? I don't think so, I am somehow dubious about the goals
of your post here anyway.
As for configurability, I think there is no comparison between
metacity and xfwm4 in this regard.
So, you prefer metacity over xfwm4 and you are using openbox, fine.
It's your choice and free software is all about choice, so what is
point of your post on this list, really?
More information about the Xfce