Re: gnome-terminal awfully slow

[Hidetoshi Tajima <hidetoshi tajima sun com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:09:07PM +0000, Bill Haneman wrote: 
> > Is VTE a compile-time option?  If so then I am concerned since we
> > haven't been able to verify the accessibility of VTE yet (at last check,
> > it failed to emit necessary events when text content or text caret
> > changed).
> >
> > Of course it might be working but I think we should be very cautious
> > about swapping out components at build time (as opposed to
> > user-selectable runtime options) if we haven't yet verified their
> > accessibility.
> >   
>
> Zvt is dead, I'm going to delete all support for it from HEAD.  vte is
> a compile-time option in 2.2.
I'd support Havoc. Zvt development has been completely dead for months -
no chance to be alive again 
when vte's development is fearly active. I have a reason to judge so:-)

About slowness or cpu usage, Zvt was faily bad, too, I would say. When I
did performance comparizon
i.e. with "ls -R /usr", there was not siginificant difference between zvt
and vte. Eterm and, if I dare to
add, CDE's dtterm on Solaris were far better in speed of text-display and
cpu usage.

Havoc, do you know where the difference could come?  Is't in gnome-terminal
code or in vte?

Regards,
Toshi
> Havoc
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list