常用的几个窗口管理器的性能比较

FEATURES - PERFORMANCE

In the beginning of this section, we explained that all window managers perform the same basic tasks. If that's true, then what makes one window manager better than any other? In the grand scheme of things, all window managers have a niche and tend to serve a particular purpose, so it can be difficult to compare them fairly. Many factors are involved, including customization, documentation, stability, ease of installation, general hardware/software requirements, and personal preferences. Ultimately, a user will need to try out several of them to find one that meets their specific needs. However, we present the following table and summary in an effort to clarify Window Maker's position amongst the more popular window managers that exist today.

FEATURES COMPARISON
NAME	VERSION	THEMES	DOCKAPPS	WORKSPACES	PIN-UP MENUS	GUI CONFIG	ENVIRONMENTS
AfterStep	1.8.8
Blackbox	0.61.1
Enlightenment	0.16.5
FVWM	2.2.5
IceWM	1.0.7
Sawfish	1.0
Window Maker	0.65.1

MEMORY USAGE COMPARISON
NAME	BINARY SIZE	BASE MEMORY SIZE	TOTAL MEMORY SIZE	SHARED LIBS	LOAD TIME
AfterStep	233K	1168K	2556K	11	4s
Blackbox	163K	272K	1568K	8	2s
Enlightenment	661K	1576K	3784K	19	8s
FVWM	190K	350K	1428K	7	2s
IceWM	290K	328K	1576K	7	2s
Sawfish	154K	1948K	3808K	18	4s
Window Maker	476K	596K	2376K	15	2s

Please note that these results are at least five years old, and this page is here for historical purposes. We will try to update this comparison at some point.

The test machine used to obtain the results in this table was a generic, home built 233mhz Intel Pentium with 32MB of RAM. The OS was Debian Linux (unstable tree), and all tested window managers were run in their default configurations. Binary Size is the stripped binary file size. Base Memory Size is the in-use memory size (text area + data area + stack), without shared libaries. Total Memory Size is the base memory size including shared libraries. Shared Libs is the number of linked shared libraries. And finally, Load Time is the number of seconds it took to fully load the window manager (i.e the point it becomes usable). The Themes, Dockapps, Workspaces, Pin-Up Menus, GUI Config categories indicate whether or not those features are supported. The environments category indicates which of the three prominent desktop environments are supported. In this case, the window manager has support if it is at least somewhat aware (via window hints) of the environment, and generally integrates well with it.

Keep in mind that the distribution of features and functionality vs. memory consumption in Window Maker tends to be linear. In other words, as features and functionality increase, memory usage increases proportionally. When compared to the other heavy-weight window managers like AfterStep, Enlightenment, and Sawfish, Window Maker offers the equivalent in less memory. When compared to the more light-weight window managers like Blackbox, FVWM, and IceWM, Window Maker does have a significantly higher memory footprint. However, take into consideration that those window managers typically rely on external programs to extend their functionality (which also use memory), and have smaller built-in feature sets. In summary, Window Maker is tightly integrated and memory efficient.

Window Maker is not the smallest, fastest, or most flexible window manager available, but it does excel in providing a balance between those points. It can be a wonderful choice for users who prefer a clean, responsive, and highly functional window manager. It is capable of running on average hardware, and does not require a great deal of technical knowledge in order to configure and customize it. Its clean and consistent interface rids the user of unnecessary distractions, allowing them to concentrate on more productive things. Give it a try -- it will speak for itself.