Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!alan.aux.apple.com!abm
From: abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
Subject: Re: A/UX on ci
Message-ID: <11484@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 11 Dec 90 17:54:30 GMT
References: <10780.27639eba@ul.ie>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Reply-To: abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms)
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <10780.27639eba@ul.ie>, leonardm@ul.ie writes:
|> Any point in trying to run AUX on anything less than an fx? I'd like to save
|> money by using a ci or cx. Anybody try it? 
|> 
|> +Martin+

I'd like to point out that almost everyone in the A/UX group at Apple runs
A/UX on a MacII or MacIIx or MacIIcx just so we are poigniently (sp?)
aware of any performance problems.  A/UX 2.0 and later are QUITE useable
on MacII performance class machines (MacII, MacIIx, MacSE30, MacIIcx).
The MacIIci is QUITE good -- especially for X11, since direct mapped
CPU RAM is driving the display and is thus faster for things to be drawn
in.

I just didn't want anyone to get the idea that A/UX REQUIRES a many-MIPS
processor: it does NOT.  ALL of the X11 code was ported on my boss's
MacIIx.  It DOES, however, help to have a lot of RAM; 8MB is starting
to look kinda small if you're running a big Macintosh world and a lot of
X11 clients or compiles or something.  Not that you can't do it, but it
is a LOT more palatable if you have 16MB or more.

-- 

Alan Mimms (alan@apple.com, ...!apple!alan)   | My opinions are generally
A/UX X group                                  | pretty worthless, but
Apple Computer                                | they *are* my own...
"Laugha whila you can, monkey boy..." -- John Whorfin in Buckaroo Bonzai
"Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan