* Thomas Dickey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > cothrige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, it has been worse at times than even above. Yesterday, I > > ran the same test and it took 20 seconds. I thought that was pretty > > awful. > > But at the same time rxvt would be running slower (due to your system load) > since it's based on the load presented.
No, actually rxvt still ran as usual, and mrxvt a bit quicker still. I would naturally expect both to be a bit quicker than xterm, but I don't recall it ever being so obvious as it seems now. While rxvt seems pretty normal, regardless of the load, xterm always scrolls the text so slowly that it is very, very obvious. I used to use xterm quite often, and it just never looked and acted this way. It actually reminds me of using a framebuffer console in how it is working right now. > On the other hand, running xterm remotely, I've measured rxvt running 5 times > slower than xterm. > > (though why someone realistically would do "ls -l /usr/bin" hasn't been said) Well, the situation is that when I am using xterm the screen is drawing and outputting very slowly. Very visibly so. I ran 'time ls /usr/bin' simply as a test for the speed of the terminal emulators. Since that directory was large I figured that I would get the best most informative results by doing that. > > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net > Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
