• Registered: 2011-02-04
  • Posts: 111

Topic: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

I compared the disk space required for seven window managers by simulating aptitude installs on a fresh Squeeze netinst distro, having added no optional packages via the Debian installer.  X and htop were the only packages added post-installation.

The seven window managers vary in the amount of additional functionality that each adds to X.   Obviously metacity does a few things that jwm doesn't do.  The comparison's usefulness might be challenged legitimately on that ground.  (Cf fluxbox).

Of course a window manager's installation footprint depends on previously installed packages, and this obviously limits the comparison's applicability.  I've included a script that can be used to compare relative disk use on a given system. 

jwm
0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 139 kB of archives. After unpacking 487 kB will be used.

blackbox
0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 360 kB of archives. After unpacking 1,069 kB will be used.

fluxbox
0 packages upgraded, 8 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 3,404 kB of archives. After unpacking 9,421 kB will be used.

openbox
0 packages upgraded, 30 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 14.6 MB of archives. After unpacking 58.7 MB will be used.

awesome
0 packages upgraded, 49 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 16.4 MB of archives. After unpacking 59.4 MB will be used.

icewm
0 packages upgraded, 54 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 28.7 MB of archives. After unpacking 97.6 MB will be used.

metacity
0 packages upgraded, 389 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 239 MB of archives. After unpacking 695 MB will be used.

Script to run at your own risk. I hope it doesn't install seven window managers on your machine.  smile

#!/bin/bash
for WM in jwm blackbox fluxbox openbox awesome icewm metacity;
        do
                echo $WM;
                aptitude -ys install $WM | egrep "upgraded|archives"
                echo
        done

Last edited by tranche (2011-03-11 16:02:42)

tranche's Website

  • Registered: 2010-01-26
  • Posts: 275

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

Heh, cool little script. What I'm actually most wondering about is how much ram and processor is used by each wm, at boot and after using them for a few hours.

Meh. Interested for a Dropbox alternative? Go to https://launchpad.net/tart
  • Unia
  • #! Die-hard
  • Online
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 2010-07-17
  • Posts: 2,303

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

Andreas wrote:

Heh, cool little script. What I'm actually most wondering about is how much ram and processor is used by each wm, at boot and after using them for a few hours.

That would also depend on what you do on your computer, not just the WM

Let's do it and don't screw it.
      Github || Deviantart
  • iann
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-09-10
  • Posts: 223

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

The obvious omission is Xfce.  On my far from fresh install it claimed 84MB would be needed!

  • Registered: 2011-02-04
  • Posts: 111

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

@Andreas - Agree that runtime RSS after a period of use would be more interesting, but along the lines of what Unia said it's hard to make use a hard-edged concept.  Much harder problem. 

@Iann - I got 78.4 MB for xfce4 on this no-longer fresh Debian install.

What was interesting to me is that metacity uses over a thousand times the disk space of jwm, so there's quite a range.

Last edited by tranche (2011-03-12 02:15:47)

tranche's Website

  • iann
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-09-10
  • Posts: 223

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

What was interesting to me is that metacity uses over a thousand times the disk space of jwm

The vast majority of it being graphics wink

  • Awebb
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-07-23
  • Posts: 2,471

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

Nice comparison.

iann wrote:

What was interesting to me is that metacity uses over a thousand times the disk space of jwm

The vast majority of it being graphics wink

In fact, most of it are gnome-desktop dependencies which have nothing to do with metacity at all.

I'm so meta, even this acronym
  • Registered: 2011-02-04
  • Posts: 111

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

Awebb wrote:

Nice comparison.

iann wrote:

What was interesting to me is that metacity uses over a thousand times the disk space of jwm

The vast majority of it being graphics wink

In fact, most of it are gnome-desktop dependencies which have nothing to do with metacity at all.

Demonstrating once again that it's difficult to take a small bite out of Gnome's apple.  smile

tranche's Website

  • iann
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-09-10
  • Posts: 223

Re: Comparing disk footprint for seven window managers

Strangely when I try to pull in Metacity is only asks for 12MB.  Actually it didn't ask for some reason which was a little annoying lol I already have gdm and so a lot of gnome libraries but I couldn't immediately see what Metacity was looking for that would make up the other 70+MB.  libgtk?  libcairo? libgconf?  libx stuff?