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
