• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 days ago

    It’s ridiculous how much time people are spending performance optimizing terminals.

    xterm on a 120MHz Pentium on X11 in the 90s performed “fine”.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Every Linux user has the earliest and lowest specced version of the 4k Lenovo thinkpad from back when 4k on a laptop was impractical and a stupid idea.

    • PetteriPano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      Sure, it performed “fine”.

      But it was sluggish compared to the VGA ttys we were used to.

      Now, if we can have something as snappy and at the same time as pretty as Eterm… 👌

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      The problem with xterm is that everything else about it sucks. The only other half-decent performer is mlterm which is decent but has its share of issues.

      This one feels quite snappy; better than foot.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      The “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” terminal?

      Edit: that was once a comment in the sourcecode.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Hah! It’s funny I just fired it up again for the first time and I do see a bit of flicker in xterm when paging full-screened in vim… So maybe there is something to performance optimizing terminals. :-)