Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!lzm From: lzm@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Chris McCoy) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: XStation 120 - AIXWindows vs. real X11 - *SOLVED* Message-ID: <6146@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 23 Nov 90 17:55:49 GMT References: <4282@awdprime.UUCP> <6136@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: Purdue University Lines: 26 In mezger@dia.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Kai Martin Mezger) writes: >Btw.: Using the "native" fonts for the XStations doesn`t give them a >boost, but some of the users at least claim to "feel" a performance >increase. Did someone MEASURE this. How did you measure this, and what were your measurements? Though we did not measure the differences, there was a substantial difference. We probably could use a stopwatch, with the minute hand rather than the second hand, to measure the startup difference with such programs as InfoExplorer, FrameMaker, etc. Even our IBM SE's were amazed at the difference in speed. If there wasn't any boost in speed it sure was a good optical illusion. While on the subject of Xstations ... Last May one of the programmers from our group visited the Austin facility and was convinced that their Xstations were running much faster than ours. Do any of you Austin "guys" (or "gals") know how those terminals were configured? How were the resources set? How was the Xstation Manager configured? What about video and processor memory? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris McCoy : INTERNET: mccoy@acn.purdue.edu UNIX Systems Programmer : UUCP: ...!ecn-ee!mccoy Ag. Computer Network, Purdue Univ. : VOICE: (317) 494-8333 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=