Given what sawfish does, I think it's on the light-weight side. On low end laptops, it performs well, as good or better than fvwm2. I tried OpenBox, but didn't use it very long. It didn't have what I consider the most minimal customizations.
I guess I don't get too excited about these kind of classification. Light-weight isn't precise. A essential feature is something you need, a useless feature is something someone else needs ;-) The nice think about a scriptable program like Sawfish is it make it easier to add features that only add weight when they are used. Cheers, Mark Teika Kazura <[email protected]> writes: > Do you think Sawfish is lightweighted? In my opinion, not so > much. Openbox for example in my opinion can be deemed > lightweighted. Do you know any "heavy" WMs? (On PC, / tablet ...) > > It's because Sawfish introduction phrases say "Sawfish is > lightweighted", but I'd like to be honest and precise. > > I tried Openbox the other day, and even though I expected so, I was a > bit shocked that it started very fast. Memory usage doesn't seem to > vary much; 9M by sawfish vs 8M by openbox, comparing "RES" field in > htop. > > # Openbox is barely customizable contrary to their claim, viewed from > # "the" Sawfish standard. Yet we can learn from it. > > Regards, > Teika (Teika kazura)
