Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:30712 alt.sys.sun:2347
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!metaware!adam
From: adam@metaware.metaware.com (At these prices, I can't NAME names)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,alt.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Xkernel
Message-ID: <677@metaware.metaware.com>
Date: 17 Dec 90 21:19:28 GMT
References: <EVAN.90Dec5171522@murgon.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <KARL.90Dec5155722@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1990Dec5.214857.13863@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Dec14.001146.3131@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To: adam@metaware.UUCP (At these prices, I can't NAME names)
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Organization: MetaWare Incorporated, Santa Cruz
Lines: 10

>Xkernels for 4M 3/50s are a big win.  I think they wouldn't be on a 8M 3/50.
>They are *not* a win on 8M 3/60s w/ cgfour displays.  All workstations I
>used for the test were dickless.

Were those Unix workstations? #-)
-- 
adam margulies                                    metaware incorporated
                                                  INTERNET: adam@metaware.com
                                                  UUCP:     uunet!metaware!adam
                                                  ATT:      (408)429-META x3016