Hi,
After installing it, and makign the .fvwmrc2 file
Is this fvwm lighter and faster than TWM ??
Thank you,
Patrick
If you keep your config light and nice it should be, yes.
Also depends on your compile flags 
Some people over-use the scripting tools and keep on pumping extra’s into their fvwm2rc wich they won’t use that much anyway. If that’s the case for you you’re better off with TWM if you want sole speed.
By the way, since 2.5.13, “.fvwm2rc” is deprecated: use “~/.fvwm/config”!
Not really. FVWM has a lot more features in it, even if you don’t use any of its modules. You have to remember that TWM is very basic indeed, and doesn’t provide any proper border decoration, colorset schemes and such that FVWM does.
– Thomas Adam
Hey, if your overwhelming priority is lightness, don’t run a WM at all - just fire up Xorg with an Xterm, and do it all from there 
Thank you very much !!
I ll try the config …
My config for my old pc is :
Laptop Compaq Presario 1685 (K6-2, 380 MHz)
Ram 64 Mo - Dd 4.3 Go - Cd - Modem - 12.1"
I havent much ram … I used 2*2 desktop, maybe that 's too much …
tahnks again !
That should do fine. Check out the libm2 thumb.c file on this forum if you want fast thumbnail conversions on older PCs like yours. Yust don’t add scroll_page.pl or use composite or other heavy stuff
Actually, twm is very slow and inefficient. It may not do much, but what it does do it does badly. An equivalent fvwm configuration would be many times faster and more efficient.
It depends what you’re classing speed as. In terms of program loading and decoration then twm is quick, as what twm provides is minimal [1]. I’m not saying that it does things any better or worse than X, mind. FVWM goes above and beyond TWM.
– Thomas Adam