Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!grep!vic
From: vic@grep.co.uk (Victor Gavin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Compressed executables
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.122244.4134@grep.co.uk>
Date: 25 Jan 91 12:22:44 GMT
References: <1991Jan15.204849@IASTATE.EDU> <118868@uunet.UU.NET> <3977@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Jan23.123808.22159@grep.co.uk> <4001@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: vic@grep.co.uk (Victor Gavin)
Organization: Grep Limited, LEEDS, UK
Lines: 21

In article <4001@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
>It seems pretty clear that it's trading cpu time for disk space and
>disk accesses.  On a reasonably fast workstation with small slow
>disks, it seems likely to be a winning tradeoff.

I would agree with you if Acorn actually had a range of machines with this as a
low entry machine. When you start comparing against SPARCs (for instance) you
get the distinct impression that Acorn aren't totally commited yet. I think the
reason they've made the R140/R260 the way they have is because of their
background in building small, personal machines.

As an aside, who would like to see an ARM based X-terminal. I suggested this to
Acorn a long time ago (and again quite recently) that they do this, but they
never seemed interested. I don't know enough about X-windows, or I'd do it
myself :-)

The way X terminal manufacturers have sprung up, their is definitely a market
(and that means $$$$) and it would also give Acorn a market presence, and help
raise the Acorn name in commercial unix environments.

			vic