JWM in antiX 19A2 looking great (without installing anything)

Forum Forums General Screenshots JWM in antiX 19A2 looking great (without installing anything)

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by PPC Jun 4-7:45 am.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22528
    Member
    Avatar
    PPC

    Hi everyone!
    It just came to me that after tweaking Fluxbox and JWM, I never put any of my screenshots here…
    So, here it is: JWM running after altering just 2 configuration files (I have a thread on that, even a newbie can do it- but read all the way till the last post to understand how do to it) ends up being light and looking as most modern desktops do… Adding a couple of lines can even get you a very simple looking “dock”… Also adding half a dozen lines of text can get you window decorations similar to MX Linux (already provided out of the box)… there are too many variables to talk about here… JWM has my newfound admiration- when I tried it I thought it was just a very light but very ugly desktop- but now I see it can look great out of the box, in very low system resources…
    (Also there’s a official appimage of a kind of configuration tool for JWM that allows you to change just about anything via GUI, but I had mixed results with that- it once automatically changed my menu and task bar without any input from me… Using text files allows users to understand what’s going on)

    P.

    • This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by PPC.
    #22531
    Member
    manyroads
    manyroads

    As an interesting aside regarding resource consumption, my testing is indicating, that:
    — “when desktop functionality is matched” –and
    — when these desktops run on the same hardware –and
    — use the same version of antiX,

    the difference in RAM use is +/-10% (the typical band I’m seeing is 275MB – 305MB) between the following :
    1. iceWM
    2. fluxbox
    3. jwm
    4. openbox
    5. xfce

    The only way to achieve a broader difference in RAM use is to restrict comparisons to each desktops’ standard feature set; and then, they are no longer matched/ equivalent.

    As they say here, when you compare “apples to apples” the performance across these desktop platforms is quite excellent and similar.

    Anyway, that’s what my two weeks of testing indicates.

    PS. Looking at your screen shot (conky), I can tell you that I am getting a clean version of xfce to run at 305MB, fluxbox at about 280MB as a comparison to the 380-ish yours shows.

    • This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by manyroads.

    Pax vobiscum,
    Mark Rabideau - http://many-roads.com
    bspwm MX-18.3 kernel: 5.2.15-antix.1-amd64-smp
    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
    MX- antiX- BL- ArchLabs

    #22534
    Member
    Avatar
    PPC

    Looking at your screen shot (conky), I can tell you that I am getting a clean version of xfce to run at 305MB, fluxbox at about 280MB as a comparison to the 380-ish yours shows..

    @Manyroads- Correct, my friend, but in my screenshot, you can see that I’m running both Firefox and the calendar (it’s in fact only the command “yad –calendar”). Idle RAM is really about 140 Mb (give or take a couple of Mb).

    I agree with your point of view about the fact that there are only small difference between all those desktops, comparing “apples to apples”. In my limited experience Flubox and JWM are almost even as being the ones that take up less idle RAM, that’s way I began “modding” Fluxbox, because I use a netbook with a 1 gig of shared RAM, and FB offered me a bit more free RAM. Not using composition (that you use), or a notification daemon, or desktop icons, etc, can shave a few Mb of RAM usage- not meaningful for more modern computers, but precious when the user has very low RAM.

    Off topic- Side note on putting RAM to good use- In my experience the less RAM hungry of all “major” internet browsers is a fork of Chromium- ungoogled Chromium (I use it in a Appimage, but it’s a bit outdated, which is a security concern). Also, someone should put a shortcut for smtube with the YouTube icon on the bar/desktop- I believe most users don’t realize that it’s really a YouTube player, the kind most people use on their phones/tablets, that runs very well on very low powerful specs machines (even single cores with 500 Mb of RAM).

    P.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.