Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Xkernel Message-ID: <80@tdatirv.UUCP> Date: 18 Dec 90 16:28:56 GMT References: <1990Dec5.214857.13863@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Dec14.001146.3131@eng.umd.edu> Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine Lines: 23 In article <1990Dec14.001146.3131@eng.umd.edu> stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) writes: >In article <1990Dec5.214857.13863@agate.berkeley.edu> you write: >> ... which are now running SunOS4.1 and have become unbearably slow when >> running standalone X (mostly through the dynamic linking business, >> we believe). >Compile a staticly linked set of X programs, your already poor throughput will >become really *really* poor (on a 4Meg system at least). I would like to emphasize the truth of this. I, too, believed that the dynamic linkng was a speed problem, until we got FrameMaker 2.1X from Frame Technologies. That monster is statically linked. True, shelltool takes a longish time to *start*, but once it is running it is quite good. Maker on the other hand starts slow and then generates a paging fit whenever I switch from one activity to another. Talk about *sloooow*! (Frame Technology are you listening? - at *least* make xlib and libc dynamic linking!) -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen) -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)