Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!agate!darkstar!ucscf.UCSC.EDU!isbell
From: isbell@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (Art Isbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: (Ne)X(T) Terminals---a hot product idea?
Summary: How do DPS and X network traffic compare?
Keywords: DPS, X
Message-ID: <15108@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 27 Apr 91 17:33:04 GMT
References: <1991Apr25.084827.1475@math.ucla.edu> <1991Apr26.193131.10122@wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Organization: none really - just me
Lines: 36


In article <1991Apr26.193131.10122@wimsey.bc.ca> jchin@wimsey.bc.ca (Joseph Chin) writes:
>Damn good idea! Rob Lin of the Tao tabloid fame proposed that almost two
>years ago in an early issue of Tao. A Display Postscript terminal (or DPS
>terminal as it shall be known) with a cheapo 68000 processor running the
>server part and a full fledge 040 cube running the client part (ala X) would
>be very practical. If the DPS terminal can be retailed for $1500 or less, it
>would definitely be a very attractive alternative to X terminals. The
>DPS terminal would also be less likely to be outdated (you just replace
>the cube when new and faster ones come out) and would easily accommodate
>future multi-processor NeXTs!!!
>
>The only expensive part would be the licensing of DPS for each terminal. But
>I am sure someone at NeXT can wing a good deal with Adobe since the postscript
>market is coming under fire from alot of competing alternatives (e.g. TrueType
>and several other postscript clones).
>
I think something like this will be necessary for NeXT to compete with the X
networks.  However, I was disturbed by the earlier posting comparing DPS and X
network traffic.  The poster is connected via 19.2K SLIP to some network across
which he can run X and DPS jobs on remote servers (the client-server
terminology gets confusing because X calls its X terminals "servers" and remote
jobs as "clien", I think).  He stated that DPS jobs under NeXTstep generate
more network traffic than X jobs.  Has anyone run the same application under X
and DPS (there are a few that have been ported to both, I think) and compared
network efficiency?  I think this is a really important issue.  I had always
assumed that part of X's braindeadedness (!) relative to DPS was its voluminous
network protocol.  But maybe DPS ain't so good either.  Can anyone comment?
I'd like to drive another nail in X's coffin, but maybe this isn't the correct
nail.
-- 
                                          _____   ____
Art Isbell                 |\   |         |    |  |   \   315 Moon Meadow Lane
NeXT Registered Developer  | \  |   ___   |____|  |    |  Felton, CA
isbell@ucscf.UCSC.EDU      |  \ |  |___|  |  \    |    |  95018-9442
(408)438-4736(B)           |   \|  |___   |   \   |___/   (408)335-1154(H)