Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:07:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> To: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@spymac.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Windows X Message-ID: <20040721160351.P8675@chylonia.3miasto.net> In-Reply-To: <200407210613.51564.krinklyfig@spymac.com> References: <1d4a18aea94bac57a.20040720111303.wzyrjvf@www.dslextreme.com> <20040721000043.20861538@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> <200407210613.51564.krinklyfig@spymac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > and start browsing. :) > > I just installed the newest XFce today, and wow, it's nice. Very fast. I don't compared to KDE - for sure fast. > want to give up KMail, but like a lot of other KDE apps, it runs other KDE no problem to run KMail without KDE except it will take lot of CPU too. > processes that tend to bog it down in any wm. But it's very quick on XFce, > faster even than on IceWM, at least on my machine. It wouldn't matter so much > to me, but KMail is by far my favorite GUI email client. If I were a better > programmer I'd backwards engineer it without all the hooks into KDE stuff, nice idea. hopefully text-mode pine is fine for me, quick and can be configured to run right programs to view attachment (like xv to view .jpg, gif etc.) > but maybe later ... Mozilla starts in less than two seconds without being > preloaded. Amazing. Who said Mozilla is slow starting? Not me anymore. slow and fast is relative. to machine and to other programs. it takes >10 seconds on my celeron/300 to load mozilla, while links -g starts in 1 second. > > I'm glad you posted this, because it reminded me to give XFce a test. IceWM > doesn't seem to perform nearly as quickly for me (which is odd), but maybe I > don't have it configured correctly. I think I like XFce better anyway ;) strange, or XFce is really so fast. must try.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040721160351.P8675>