fourdan.olivier at wanadoo.fr
Thu Jun 9 13:59:46 CEST 2005
Again, I can make the WM go a lot faster (2X faster than metacity according to that tool, for example), but smart placement won't be as smart as it is now.
Bad result to benchmarks, even when meaningfull (which is not the case with that test) doesn't necesssarily show a weakness in code. If, to gain 50ms, you have to make the code a lot more complex then I think it's better to be a bit slower and keep maintainable and reliable code.
I don't mean that there is no room for improvements, I just mean that the usefullness of breaking stable code for a meaningless benchmark is yet to be proven.
> Message du 09/06/05 13:13
> De : "samuel verstraete" <samuel.verstraete at gmail.com>
> A : "Jens Luedicke" <jens.luedicke at gmail.com>, "XFCE4 development list" <xfce4-dev at xfce.org>
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: E17 benchmarks
> I mailed with Rasterman... Asking some things... He had a few
> suggestions... Shall i forward them to the list or do you guys don't
> feel any need to look into this benchmark thing?
> I personally feel it has some importance ... Benchmarking doesn't need
> to reflect real world situations. That's not what it's ment for... It's
> meant to show weaknesses in code and that can only be done by stressing
> the code not by giving you real world situations. If you agree with me
> on this i think we can look into this. If you guys feel more like this
> benchmarking stuff is crap or BS... than lets just ignore this whole
> thing :)
> n Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:54:05 +0200
> Jens Luedicke <jens.luedicke at gmail.com> wrote:
> > the usability of a window manager can hardly be measured by the amount
> > of windows it can create/show per second.
> > the numbers in the second test. they differ all up from the third
> > digit after the comma. the difference is hardly noticable for a
> > generic human.
> > granted, E17's graphic features are probably much more advanced than
> > those of the other window managers. but that's about it. when I tried
> > E17 the last time, it was all eye candy without any comfort.
> > On 6/9/05, Jasper Huijsmans <jasper at xfce.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Olivier,
> > >
> > > Just saw some benchmarks by rasterman for E17. Xfwm4 comes out at the bottom,
> > > far below metacity. That sounds wrong to me. Maybe it's useful, maybe not...
> > >
> > > http://www.rasterman.com
> > >
> > > Jasper
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xfce4-dev mailing list
> > > Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> > > http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
> > >
> > --
> > Jens Luedicke
> > web: http://perldude.de/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfce4-dev mailing list
> > Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> > http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
More information about the Xfce4-dev