Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk!beta.its.bt.co.uk!tjo From: tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems Message-ID: Date: 31 Oct 90 07:58:50 GMT References: <1534@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <1990Oct31.014133.14048@athena.mit.edu> Sender: news@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (News with an UZI) Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Lines: 24 CS 101: Network Window Systems 1) The X Window System and GUIs built on X are expensive in terms of CPU, memory and network resources. Discuss. You should compare the X philosophy with competing network windowing philosophies such as those based on PostScript. I'd be extremely interested in hearing peoples' views on this. I personally think that X is seen as far too much as a panacea for Unix HCI, and it worries me that X has been seized upon as a ``standard'' with little thought for the implications in terms of hardware and networking costs. The fact that I hear people from Sun tell me ``Our implementation of Open Look is great --- but you need 16 Meg in your SPARCstation'' alarms me. The fact that a 68030 isn't enough CPU for a single user of an X GUI under V.4 alarms me. The fact that X applications potentially generate significant numbers of packets and eat up CPU cycles even when there's no user interaction alarms me (ever watched a LANalyser when xeyes is running?). Applications controlling such dumb things as rubber-banding alarms me. I'm no Xpert, but has the industry got it wrong? Tim. -- Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo Living in interesting times.