Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] gnome-terminal performance
From: Chris Pickett (chris.pickett_AT_mail.mcgill.ca)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:13:23 EEST
Chris Pickett wrote:
> Florin Andrei wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 12:30, Chris Pickett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Florin Andrei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2004-July/thread.html#00071
>>>>
>>>>Am i crazy? Am i the only one who thinks that the current incarnation of
>>>>gnome-terminal is slow and a resource hog?
>>>
>>>No. I recently tried just about every terminal I could get my hands on,
>>>and settled on using aterm like this:
>>>
>>>aterm -bg black -fg white +sb -tr -sh 15 -sl 10000 -si -sk -fn 8x13 -ls
>>>-geometry 80x36
>>
>>
>>Nice. But it seems focused on "cute" features such as transparent
>>background and such.
>>
>>http://aterm.sourceforge.net/
>>
>>Are you sure it's the fastest, leanest one?
>
>
> to the point where I would be happy with it forever. I haven't done any
> real profiling for memory usage, but like I said, gnome-terminal was
> atrocious on my system (750 MHz P3 256 Mb RAM (supposed to be 384 Mb)).
>
> note that i don't like menubars or scrollbars or any of that crap, and
> aterm lets you get rid of them easily (scrollbar is shift+pgup/pgdn or
> shift+up/dn). usually i just work with 2 or three terminals full
> screen, but occasionally unmaximize them. if i remember correctly, it's
> like xterm except you can have a transparent background if you want, and
> it's a bit lighter too.
In fact, here. This is four of them side-by-side, with some 80-column
text at 8x13 so you can see the readability (9x15 looks even nicer, and
I would use it if I had a 1600x1200 screen; mine is 1400x1050):
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~cpicke/Screenshot-1.png
ps tells me they're each using about 2 Mb of memory.
Cheers,
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:10:27 EEST
