Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!cns!umaida!rn From: rn@ap.co.umist.ac.uk (bob nutter) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: Re: Installation of X11R4 on apollo Message-ID: <1991Mar25.114110@ap.co.umist.ac.uk> Date: 25 Mar 91 11:41:10 GMT References: <9103112113.AA20443@hpcvxph.cv.hp.com> <1991Mar12.214819.980@alphalpha.com> <1991Mar19.031439.8944@alphalpha.com> Sender: news@cns.umist.ac.uk (Usenet news) Reply-To: rn@ap.co.umist.ac.uk (bob nutter) Organization: UMIST Computation dept, Manchester, UK Lines: 18 In article <1991Mar19.031439.8944@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: |> >Does anyone know if there are any major diffs between mit X11R4 and |> >Hp/Apollo X11R4 release? (speed,etc...) |> The Apollo version should be faster since it uses display specific drivers. |> How much faster probably depends on the type of hardware. In our experience, using MIT X11R4 on mono dn3/4k's at sr10.1, the mfb driver is quicker than the gpr one, or at least it seems to interact better for us. Whether this applies to Apollo X11R4 as well I don't know. bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bob nutter, computer officer | UMIST dept of computation | "Be Excellent To Each Other!" po box 88 manchester m60 1qd uk | -Bill & Ted tel:+44 61 200 3386 | email:b.nutter@umist.ac.uk |