Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Re: speed of newer versions of OpenWindows on low-end Suns Message-ID: Date: 13 Oct 90 05:24:30 GMT References: <42929@andante.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 31 To: mp@allegra.att.com I have a 3/50 on my desk (though I must confess that normally I use someone else's desk, and he has a 3/60). I consider OpenWindows releases previous to 2.0 -- even 2.0 beta -- essentially unusable on a 4MB 3/50. 2.0 is just barely usable. However X11R4 is noticably faster, at least with the tuning we've done. The difference is enough to matter, as it takes you from a situation where you really wonder if it's worth using windows at all to one that is usable. Here's what we've done to optimize X11R4 for small systems. First, we have a special image that has removed as much as possible, things like color support, support for xdm, etc. The goal is to get as small an image as possible. (Removing the shapes extension didn't seem to save enough to be worth doing.) Also, on a 4MB system I recommend running the X11R4 server with the options -su -bs. Finally, I strongly suggest disabling the swapper on SunOS 4.0.x: adb -w /vmunix nosched?W 1 ^D It doesn't take effect until reboot. This patch was originally proposed as a workaround for the PMEG problem on SS1's, but seems to make 3/50's noticably more responsive. So in short, if your target is a 4MB system, I would not bother trying to get any OpenWindows before 2.0. 2.0 is usable if you have some strong reason to need it, like you're a user support person trying to support people with 8MB systems, but you're stuck with a 4MB system. But for most purposes I recommend using X11R4 on 4MB systems. I believe the reason X11R4 performs better is simply that it's smaller, and on a 4MB machine that's more important than CPU use.