Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!brtmac From: brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Alternatives to the Window System from Planet X Message-ID: <1990Oct23.195322.2104@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> Date: 23 Oct 90 19:53:22 GMT References: <34207@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Sender: news@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (The News Guru) Distribution: comp.sys.next Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 23 In dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes: >> X runs incredibly nicely on Sun Sparcstation 1 machines. >Just because it's responsive and feels quick, that doesn't mean it's >running nicely. It's still consuming a disproportionate amount of >system resources. I want a window system that will run well on a slow >machine, because it will consume very few cycles on a quick machine. The xnews server isn't any faster than the standard MIT X server, and it uses about twice as much memory. I figure that if you take out the X code so that all you have is the NeWS code, you are still going to wind up with a server that uses at least the same amount of memory. As far as CPU usage goes, processing postscript and converting it to pixrect function calls can't be any less CPU intensive than taking the X calls and displaying them. -- Every day you scream at me to turn the music low. But if you keep on screaming, you'll make me deaf, ya know. -- Judas Priest Brett McCoy brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu