Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!texsun!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: X-Windows on PC's
Message-ID: <1990Jul14.044611.21067@amd.com>
Date: 14 Jul 90 04:46:11 GMT
References: <1990Jul11.221121.3619@cs.utk.edu> <6718@ozdaltx.UUCP> <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Reply-To: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Distribution: na
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 25

In article <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
|The server runs under extended DOS in 286 or 386 machines. Likewise,
|clients can run in 286 or 386 protected mode.  They claimed it would
|run on a 286 with 2M (this sounds too good to be true).  The only snag
|is who is going to buy it.  Does it make any sense to put something as
|complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when
|the same machine could run UNIX?

1) Who wants to run Unix on a 286?

2) It's a lot more economical to have a few very fast servers with
expensive software accessed via X-servers than to pay for the
expensive software on every possible user's machine, not to mention
the cost in disk space and adminstration, upgrades etc.

This is a very serious issue for hardware guys, where some of the
software is so expensive that you pay by the month.

3) One would imagine DV-X would use a lot less disk space than full
Unix.

--
--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!