From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: scroll speed - emacs vs. xterm vs. rxvt Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 02:04:58 GMT Organization: sheol Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1046743498@sheol.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1046744728 14474 80.91.224.249 (4 Mar 2003 02:25:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18q27T-0003lH-00 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 03:25:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18q27g-0001pj-02 for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:25:40 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.x,gnu.emacs.help Original-Distribution: world Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-3!unknown@tent.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Original-Lines: 35 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu comp.os.linux.x:198629 gnu.emacs.help:110773 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:7274 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:7274 : Alexander Sirotkin : I've noticed that compilation time greatly depends on a terminal you : run it in, at least for one particular project which prints lots of : information during build process. When I redirect it to a file it : speeds the compilation time by 30% and when it's run in a terminal : (konsole or gnome-terminal) top shows that X+terminal consumes about : 20% CPU load. : : I decided to compare different terminals in terms of scroll speed, and : here is what I found : : : rxvt : 1 xterm : 2.4 konsole : 6 gnome-terminal : 11 emacs : 42 : : Meaning that for instance rxvt is 42 times faster than emacs. : : Well... actually I don't know what to add, these results look pretty : bad to me. It means that I will never compile in emacs window and : should abandon all terminals except for rxvt. Is that with the tested app iconized, or does that count the constant X screen updates? What you want for such displays is something that does really exagerated jumpscrolling; you could write a tcl/tk script that'd do the trick, ie, be a VERY dumb terminal, but with a more efficient display of high speed spewed text. Hrm... the scripts I have on my shelf just handle output and display, though; not things like typing inputs, interupts, etc. Ah well. I guess the point is that the above example apps are all oriented to doing characer-by-character updates with low latency, instead of to monitoring the growing tip of a spewed stream of data with relatively little interaction. Well... emacs shows more poorly than I'd expect for that reason alone, but still... Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw