What UF has lowest mem?

[That one guy]

Xperl, pitbull or something else?

[Caellian]

oUF by far

[Slakah]

eugh, oUF isn't magic sauce. You could write your own "pure" Unit Frame addon and (if written well) would have a lower memory usage.

Basically all I'm trying to say is oUF is a tool, and yes it will have a lower memory usage than xperl, pitbull etc. but you have to consider that it isn't particularly user friendly.

[nytekat]

I tried Stuf not to long ago and it was really low on mem usage and it has an in game config.
But I went back to ouf with Caellian's layout.

[mikma]

Default is lowest.

[Caellian]

Originally Posted by Mikma Default is lowest.

True that, but default is also ugliest

[Zyonin]

Memory usage is not really a big deal unless you are running on an extremely marginal system. The thing to look at is CPU usage. Most of the UF mods out there are pretty good when it comes to CPU usage. X-Perl, Perl Classic, STUF, and oUF don't eat a lot of CPU cycles. Discord Unit Frames, PitBull 3 and PitBull 4 (if you use DogTags) all eat CPU cycles like candy.

[Seerah]

Just to be fair, PitBull4 is in alpha still and hasn't had its code reviewed for performance issues yet. It is the DogTag system which eats a lot of resources for PitBull and PitBull4 will also have support for multiple tag systems - whenever someone writes one to compete with DogTag.

[Zyonin]

Originally Posted by Seerah Just to be fair, PitBull4 is in alpha still and hasn't had its code reviewed for performance issues yet. It is the DogTag system which eats a lot of resources for PitBull and PitBull4 will also have support for multiple tag systems - whenever someone writes one to compete with DogTag.

Seerah, that is why when I mentioned PitBull4 I stated (in parenthesis) "if you use DogTags". That means, the high CPU usage only applies to PB4 IF the user is using DogTags. I know that PB4 is in alpha still, however I am responding to the here and now, not later in the future.

[Shirik]

If you really want to be fair, you would argue that this question is completely meaningless. Memory usage shows next to nothing about an addon's performance.

In general, for two equally well written addons, an increase in memory usage means a decrease in CPU usage. Now think about this:

- How much memory do you have?
- How much CPU do you have?

Suffice to say I'm sure WoW tends to eat up as much of your CPU as you can. On the other hand, I don't think 10MB is going to kill you.

People go after Auctioneer for eating up memory all the time, but fact of the matter is it's data. The OS is responsible for taking care of this and swapping it out to manage performance.

This is not the right question to ask. The right question to ask is which performs better. I personally think, if end-users are looking at memory usage, then they should actually learn to develop addons before they actually try to interpret that usage, because 9 times out of 10 they're going to invent some reason for it that doesn't really exist.

[Sythalin]

Real Existing Reason: Tacos

[Caellian]

Originally Posted by Shirik If you really want to be fair...

Or maybe he doesn't care about all that stuff and only wants to know which one uses less memory, it can be that simple

[Benea]

Keep in mind you pay (or compromise) for convenience. I like ouf but I'm ADD with UI's so I change things around a lot. It's too inconvenient for me to log in and out of the game in the middle of a raid night to change frames, hence I don't use ouF. PitBull and xperl use up more of your computer but the convenience of a configuration tool in game is nice.

(Try Stuf it's pretty decent.)

[jadakren]

Just out of interest, what are the typical things that you find yourself changing on such a regular basis?

just so i can get an idea of some things for my project.