Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ogicse!emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra
From: mra@srchtec.UUCP (Michael Almond)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: System V.4
Message-ID: <284@srchtec.UUCP>
Date: 24 Oct 90 13:44:18 GMT
References: <273@srchtec.UUCP> <112@raysnec.UUCP>
Organization: search technology, inc.
Lines: 25

In article <112@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:
>mra@srchtec.uucp (Michael Almond) writes:
>
>>I compiled the X stuff directly from MIT on DECstation 2100's without any
>>problem (DECwindows su*ks).  I've also heard people have the X11R4 running
>>on PCs under Esix using the MIT stuff.
>
>	There's a big difference between having something compile and run,
>and having it run well.

I'm not sure what constitutes running well, but the X11R4 code from MIT runs
faster than DECwindows code (which I would guess is suppose to be a version of
MIT's that runs well [what a joke]).

What are these vendors adding to the code to make it run well?

I plan to add XView later this year/early next year when SUN releases the code
for the DEC's. BTW, they will also have the code ready for IBM PC's (YES!!).


---
Michael R. Almond                                  mra@srchtec.uucp (registered)
search technology, inc.				        emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra
Atlanta, Georgia                                         (404) 441-1457 (office)
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. Georgia Tech Alumnus .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.