Kazuyoshi Kato(kaz-k) wrote:
> 
> > At 10:33 PM -0400 9/13/97, Adrian Rollett wrote:
> > >Has anyone had any success compiling fvwm2? I was not able to. (running a
> > >IIci, latest tarballs, GENERIC#38)
> > >
> > 
> > yeah, i had success, but it was unbearably slow to use (on my 33Mhz 030,
> > anyway. prolly faster on 040's). i deleted it shortly thereafter.
> > you can get binaries from the NetBSD/Amiga site too.
> > good luck,
> >   - a
> > 
> >  Armen Babikyan - armenb@moof.ai.mit.edu
> >     ----<insert lame quote here>----
> 
> 
>   However it's lighter than twm, isn't it?  fvwm-1.24r is slightly
> lighter, though.

Uh, no.  FVWM2 is most likely _not_ lighter than twm.  Fvwm is no longer
quite "feeble" anymore (well, it may be feeble, but it certainly no longer
has the small memory footprint that it used to).  The big memory tradeoff
between fvwm 1.x and twm was mainly due to dropping much of the
customizability of twm (and some kind of difference in storing mouse
bindings).  I have a feeling that fvwm2's increased functionality has
upped it's memory footprint quite a bit.

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - MD6                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.