On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:30:07AM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> >
> >>drifting OT, but to help improve your "snappiness" try some of the
> >>lightwieght WM's (like IceWM) or a tiled one like
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 07:30 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> >
> >>drifting OT, but to help improve your "snappiness" try some of the
> >>lightwieght WM's (like IceWM) or a tiled one like WMII w
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
drifting OT, but to help improve your "snappiness" try some of the lightwieght
WM's (like IceWM) or a tiled one like WMII which I'm really starting to like.
Or even fvwm. Check it out - very
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> drifting OT, but to help improve your "snappiness" try some of the
> lightwieght WM's (like IceWM) or a tiled one like WMII which I'm really
> starting to like.
Or even fvwm. Check it out - very lightweight - very configura
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:23:32 +0100
"B.Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 10:44 -0600, Chance Platt wrote:
>
> > The feeling of responsiveness on the desktop... but more how
> > quickly the menus snap down and their dialogs to appear. For these
> > kinds of things, the o
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 18:23 +0100, B.Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 10:44 -0600, Chance Platt wrote:
>
> > The feeling of responsiveness on the desktop... but more how
> > quickly the menus snap down and their dialogs to appear. For these
> > kinds of things, the optimized binary makes a
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 10:44 -0600, Chance Platt wrote:
> The feeling of responsiveness on the desktop... but more how
> quickly the menus snap down and their dialogs to appear. For these
> kinds of things, the optimized binary makes a marked improvement.
>
> chance
>
>
>
True, this feels a l
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 10:12 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> B.Hoffmann wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 12:09 +0100, B.Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>I imagine the performance gain will probably be negligible on a desktop
> >>at home, or are there other benefits like better media support?
B.Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 12:09 +0100, B.Hoffmann wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>I imagine the performance gain will probably be negligible on a desktop
>>at home, or are there other benefits like better media support?
>>
>>Thanks again.
>>
>
>
>
> Not to worry, I'll just try out if it act
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 12:09 +0100, B.Hoffmann wrote:
> Hello,
> I imagine the performance gain will probably be negligible on a desktop
> at home, or are there other benefits like better media support?
>
> Thanks again.
>
Not to worry, I'll just try out if it actually makes a difference on a
99
Hello,
forgive my uneducated question, but what exactly is the benefit of using
a K6 kernel instead of i386?
I imagine the performance gain will probably be negligible on a desktop
at home, or are there other benefits like better media support?
Thanks again.
Kind Regards,
B.Hoffmann
Linux Use
11 matches
Mail list logo
