Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:2624 comp.windows.x:30110
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!hsdndev!husc6!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Making X work on Interactive 386/ix
Message-ID: <1607@redsox.bsw.com>
Date: 3 Dec 90 03:34:41 GMT
References: <4572@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <4572@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> dipto@umbc3.umbc.edu (Dipto Chakravarty) writes:
-
-On an ALR 33/486 we are running Interactive 386/ix 2.0.2, along with 
-their X Windows 1.1 distribution ... and the performance sucks.
-
-We have a Microsoft serial mouse and a high-performance Microfield
-V8 graphics card on the system, ... but, the mouse drags are at a 
-lag of 3-4 seconds behind!

Something is horribly wrong with your system.  I run 386/ix 2.0.2 with
Interactive's X11 1.1 on a 20 MHz 386 and the performance is pretty good --
actually very good, except for loading big bitmaps.  At work I have a 25 MHz
386 running SCO Open Doorstop; it's quite a bit slower, but nothing like
what you've described.

I have noticed that my work system, which has a Logitech serial mouse,
exhibits very slow (although not measured in seconds!) and erratic mouse
response.  At home, I have a Logitech bus mouse, and it works MUCH more
nicely.  So I would recommend ditching the serial mouse, but I suspect
there's something much more fundamental wrong with your system.

-- 
Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)
      The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it sure beats
      whatever we're using right now.