Re: NO_TEXTURE

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: "Re: AfterStep beta3 is available for testing"
• Previous message: "Re: [Announcement] AfterStep beta3 is avail for testing"

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, David Mihm wrote:

> 	I second this.  If one creates a valid look.file, then the need
> for the NO_TEXTURE is only making the binary memory usage smaller, and
> that is only by 88k (according to Ethan).

In fact, the difference is exactly 0k.  The 88k I reported to David ealier 
must have been the result of a different option I had changed (I changed 
every option I could).

I tested the default options vs. default + NO_TEXTURE, and got 1192k in 
both cases.  No difference in memory footprint at all!  (Yes, I'm sure 
I wasn't testing the same binary twice - the NO_TEXTURE one looks much 
different.)

----
Ethan Fischer
allanon@crystaltokyo.com
http://members.xoom.com/allanon1

• Next message: "Re: AfterStep beta3 is available for testing"
• Previous message: "Re: [Announcement] AfterStep beta3 is avail for testing"