On Mon, Nov26,01 13:23, Dave Price wrote: > for graphical browsers, you might look at skipstone > > aloha, > dave >
but common... in all honest... X itself is pretty heavy.... you can be VERY productive on the console... and I'd recommend sticking to that. But that's just MO... and the only way I'd follow it, is if I was stuck with a 486... as it is, I'm running a PII300 (light, I know) with 512MB of ram... so that's not my concern. :) DC > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:48:19PM +0100, Peter Szekszardi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The conversation about the memory consumption of xterm has got my > > attention. > > I have an i486DX at home with 8 MB RAM and a Debian Potato. I've tried > > to make things as small and minimal as possible, but maybe I do not know > > all the possible alternatives. > > Would you please help me with some suggestions that which programs use > > less cpu and memory than others? For example aterm uses less resource > > than xterm. Could you please suggest me a good editor both for console > > and X that uses less than vim/vim -g (vim with X gui)? Any ideas for a > > good browser? I use lynx and it is fine, but sometimes I need browser > > for X. Browsers like Opera or Netscape are far more resource hungry than > > I can afford. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Peter -- Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All men by nature desire to know." -- Aristotle.
