| Time on Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:10:06 -0500 |
|
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:19:12PM -0500, Walt Mankowski wrote:
> Congratulations, that's the first time I've ever heard Enlightenment
> described as "lightweight and minimalistic". :-) Isn't E generally
> considered the poster child for big, bloated window managers?
Sure, unoptimized it is. But then so is the linux kernel if you don't
know what you are doing.
There is a ton of options I disable in the configuration and for sanity
sake I wont list them here. The way *I* run E, E gives me no trouble,
slowness, bloat, etc... but then I don't have a way of making mpeg's out
of screenshots to prove it to you, so you'll just have to take my word
for it (or, fire up my .enlightenment on your system in a separate test
account) If anyone knows of a way I can record my desktop please post
it.
In the end, everything is arguable when it comes to preference, I'm sure
that's the reason I'm defending E at this very moment. I'm sure the
reason stays the same for the unix guru's that still use twm and will
never switch.
Personally, I like watching my windows slide out of my way when I want a
new desktop, or sliding in when I call up a new program. Also, don't
forget, I use a nVidia GeForce3 on a 2GHz P4 with 2G RDRam, which makes
any left-over bloat seem non-existent. However, at work, on a Sun
Ultra5, I run E with the *same* options only without transparent
terminals and high-res background images and I still see no video lag
when sliding from desktop to desktop.
--
Regards,
Time
13
\
9 . 3 clockbot.net
/
6
Attachment:
pgpAEVCrsB9AO.pgp
|
|