Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!bloom-beacon!dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM!fgreco
From: fgreco@dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: OpenWindows 2.0 runs slow on Sun3 50/60(?)
Message-ID: <9011091705.AA02938@islanders.>
Date: 9 Nov 90 17:05:54 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 58

> >   I have been running OpenWindows2.0 on our Sun3 50/60s
> >   for couple of weeks, and am impressed by the 
> >   method of the interface and its DeskSet applications.
> >   But I found that it ran quite slow on the Sun3 50/60s
> >   I am using.  There are around 8Mbytes memory on our
> >   Sun3 50/60, and I belive the OpenWindows runs via NSF.
> >   It runs so slow on Sun3/50 that I can hardly work on 
> >   multiwindows on my display.  It's much better on the 
> >   Sun3/60, but still doesn't work fast enough against
> >   the speed of my old&good MIT's simple Wm+Xapplications
> >   interface.

	I wouldn't suggest running OW 2.0 on a Sun3 as there
	is not enuf horsepower.  I'd suggest using the vanilla
	MIT X server and run the X-flavored OpenWindows clients remotely.
	For the 68K family of Suns, even increasing RAM doesn't
	really help; there's just not enuf zip for developer usage.
> 
> We have been abel to run the OpenWindows 2.0 for about 2 weeks, and I
> must say that I'm impressed with the graphical layout, especially the pushpin.
> 
> HOWEVER, the OW 2.0 is the only windows system that I know of, that
> slows down the computing speed of a 12.5 MIPS SparcStation (which we
> are currently running on), to the equivalent of a COMMODORE-64.

	Yow.  I didn't realize that a COMMODORE-64 was so fast! ;-)
	[...speaking of C-64, I did benchmarks on orig 3B minicomputer
	many, many moons ago...its floating pt performance was
	*really* slower than the C-64!...]

	Well, I wouldn't say "computing speed" in this (SS) context.
	Certainly there's more swapping with an 8Mb machine.
> 
> The problem with OW 2.0 is mainly the memory consumption, it wont run,
> without a lot of disk swapping, on a machine with only 8 Mb of memory.
> 
> In most cases, 12 Mb isn't really enough, you would have to have 16 Mb.

	Yes, I agree.  It "feels" like 16 Mb is the minimum threshold
	for the usual OW 2.0 developer (running Deskset stuff, devGUIDE,
	framemaker, emacs, number of xterms...etc).  
	Unless, of course, you have a CPU server that you can run your 
	X/NeWS clients on (gosh! would this machine be called an 
	X client server?...;-).

	In practice, this scenario appears to work fairly well, 
	especially if the remote machine is a 4/490 with muchos RAM
	(the IPI controller doesn't hurt either)...

	Just as an aside, some C++ colleagues of mine recommend a 
	bare minimum of 24 Mb for serious C++ development 
	(they use Solbourne's OI library and OW 2.0). 


	Frank G.


	If I can only get used to that darn SS keyboard...sigh...