Thanks for proving it, now we know. BTW, this new terminal is coming out in December called Ghostty terminal, suppose to be something like Alacrity or Kitty, in case anyone didn't know.
I think theprimeagen has been playing around with Ghostty, and he seemed to quite like it, if I remember correctly. I like the idea of native splits created by the terminal.
Hey, thanks for trying out the test with the Linux virtual terminal (VGA tty)! If you noticed in the second comment I made to your previous video, on my current gen i5 machine, the Linux VT is running fbcon at 240x75 characters... and was REALLY slow running your test script for a million counts... just over four minutes!!! xterm was quite fast (about 5 seconds), but Gnome Terminal in Ubuntu 20.04 was actually faster on my machine at a bit under 3 seconds. I was surprised by that! Perhaps Gnome Term is running in a "jump scroll" mode. I didn't try xterm with jump scroll option on that machine (and it's not handy right now). I'm probably at least a few years older than you and grew up with computers like the Tandy CoCo 1 and Commodore 64, then a college VAX cluster with real DEC-VT100s VT102s, VT220s, etc. and then lots of DOS, Windows since the 3.0 days, a bit of Sun's X Windows Unix, and a whole lot of Linux. Having used Windows so much along the way, I'm mostly a WIMP guy, but appreciate a good tool at the command line. Maybe I'd get on quite well with a tiling WM if I gave it a good effort, but mostly use XFCE or the Ubuntu version of Gnome these days when not on Windows. Curious if you have watched Casey Muratori's "How fast should an unoptimized terminal run?" video. Casey is a developer and now educator. He probably goes into way more detail than you would be able to follow if you are not a system-level programmer, but it's amazing how common programming practices today like "defensive programming" (checking for errors everywhere in the program even when it's logically impossible), and software reuse in the form of big complex software libraries and development frameworks means that everything is running orders of magnitude slower than it could or should. Link to Casey's vid: th-cam.com/video/hxM8QmyZXtg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=T782HPn3LLYCSL9-
Ya, I grew up too with the C64 using modems and terminal programs; 40 column, heh. Then I had an Amiga 500 and terminal emulation was a bit better. Now I use Ubuntu 24.10 and Gnome 47; I just use Gnome Terminal for now. When I do $ echo $TERM it tells me xterm-256color. I also just did echo $TERM within EMACS M-x vterm and says xterm-256color.
Nice on finding GNOME Terminal runs so fast! Thanks for the link to Casey Muratori, I will look into that. Like you say, not being a system-level programmer, it will probably be way above my understanding.
Use the tree command. Time it on the second run, to profit from caching. kitty is the fastest followed by alacritty, in scrolling without missing lines. xterm is very slow. Even gnome-terminal is much, much better. Try it. A script involves other factors. The dispatch time of commands?
100% useless as it's running in a VM (unless that's specifically what you're testing for). This would in no way reflect a real Linux terminal. Though even that can be run in text mode or svga mode which could provide different results. 200% useless because buffered output means the time command will return before all the text has been displayed, depending on the size of the buffer. You can see this effect when you ctrl-c something and the display continues to scroll for a long time. I'd have laughed along if you were tongue-in-cheek but you seemed to be taking this seriously. It's an interesting question but you should have at least done a visual comparison with a real, live terminal.
Awesome, this is TH-cam as it should be. Just do your stuff for fun and community. Dont know how you ended up in my feed but subbed.
I appreciate that! Thankyou for the encouragement.
Thanks for proving it, now we know. BTW, this new terminal is coming out in December called Ghostty terminal, suppose to be something like Alacrity or Kitty, in case anyone didn't know.
I think theprimeagen has been playing around with Ghostty, and he seemed to quite like it, if I remember correctly. I like the idea of native splits created by the terminal.
@@JamesChampionLinux wezterm probably has that
Fun fact, you can actually change the colors of your TTY! I made a video about it! :D
Hey, thanks for trying out the test with the Linux virtual terminal (VGA tty)! If you noticed in the second comment I made to your previous video, on my current gen i5 machine, the Linux VT is running fbcon at 240x75 characters... and was REALLY slow running your test script for a million counts... just over four minutes!!! xterm was quite fast (about 5 seconds), but Gnome Terminal in Ubuntu 20.04 was actually faster on my machine at a bit under 3 seconds. I was surprised by that! Perhaps Gnome Term is running in a "jump scroll" mode. I didn't try xterm with jump scroll option on that machine (and it's not handy right now).
I'm probably at least a few years older than you and grew up with computers like the Tandy CoCo 1 and Commodore 64, then a college VAX cluster with real DEC-VT100s VT102s, VT220s, etc. and then lots of DOS, Windows since the 3.0 days, a bit of Sun's X Windows Unix, and a whole lot of Linux. Having used Windows so much along the way, I'm mostly a WIMP guy, but appreciate a good tool at the command line. Maybe I'd get on quite well with a tiling WM if I gave it a good effort, but mostly use XFCE or the Ubuntu version of Gnome these days when not on Windows.
Curious if you have watched Casey Muratori's "How fast should an unoptimized terminal run?" video. Casey is a developer and now educator. He probably goes into way more detail than you would be able to follow if you are not a system-level programmer, but it's amazing how common programming practices today like "defensive programming" (checking for errors everywhere in the program even when it's logically impossible), and software reuse in the form of big complex software libraries and development frameworks means that everything is running orders of magnitude slower than it could or should. Link to Casey's vid: th-cam.com/video/hxM8QmyZXtg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=T782HPn3LLYCSL9-
Ya, I grew up too with the C64 using modems and terminal programs; 40 column, heh. Then I had an Amiga 500 and terminal emulation was a bit better. Now I use Ubuntu 24.10 and Gnome 47; I just use Gnome Terminal for now. When I do $ echo $TERM it tells me xterm-256color. I also just did echo $TERM within EMACS M-x vterm and says xterm-256color.
Nice on finding GNOME Terminal runs so fast!
Thanks for the link to Casey Muratori, I will look into that. Like you say, not being a system-level programmer, it will probably be way above my understanding.
@@JamesChampionLinux Ya no problem, gnome terminal is okay for now.
I watched this whilst installing 32 bit Debian without a desktop environment on a really old PC.
Respect!
Use the tree command. Time it on the second run, to profit from caching.
kitty is the fastest followed by alacritty, in scrolling without missing lines.
xterm is very slow. Even gnome-terminal is much, much better.
Try it.
A script involves other factors. The dispatch time of commands?
I will look it that. Thanks.
On kitty your same test takes 2.2 seconds real time.
Wow, that's fast! Meow.
Alacritty is the fastest.
100% useless as it's running in a VM (unless that's specifically what you're testing for). This would in no way reflect a real Linux terminal. Though even that can be run in text mode or svga mode which could provide different results.
200% useless because buffered output means the time command will return before all the text has been displayed, depending on the size of the buffer. You can see this effect when you ctrl-c something and the display continues to scroll for a long time.
I'd have laughed along if you were tongue-in-cheek but you seemed to be taking this seriously. It's an interesting question but you should have at least done a visual comparison with a real, live terminal.
Interesting. Thanks!
@@JamesChampionLinux Sorry if that came across as a bit harsh. I was a bit overtired. Please reimagine in a more friendly spirit.