Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!apple!alan.aux.apple.com!abm From: abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux Subject: Re: MacX or X Window System? Message-ID: <12052@goofy.Apple.COM> Date: 11 Feb 91 18:10:00 GMT References: <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> <28562@cs.yale.edu> Sender: usenet@Apple.COM Reply-To: abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms) Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 36 In article <28562@cs.yale.edu>, ewing-martin@cs.yale.edu (Martin Ewing) writes: |> In article <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) writes: |> >I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with |> >getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. |> >What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under |> >A/UX? Thanks. |> |> Two big advantages for MacX: You get the Mac desktop along with your X client |> windows, so you can run regular Mac applications. It also takes only a modest |> amount of disk space, one or two megs, I think. The disadvantage is that |> performance of your X windows is somewhat limited, especially for animation |> like 'ico'. I'd like to point out that color performance is about 2-3 times better in MacX 1.1 (just now shipping and part of A/UX 2.0.1) than in MacX 1.0.1. This might help ameliorate (sp?) that disadvantage somewhat. |> |> Running the X11 server, you get zero Macintosh compatibility but great |> performance. Of course you get the X client library, too, which you can run |> with either the vanilla X11 server or MacX. |> |> Take your pick, but I think MacX is the Better Way for most of us. Thank you. I like it too. |> |> Martin Ewing: Ewing@Yale.edu -- 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 Banzai "Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan