Xref: utzoo comp.unix.ultrix:7198 comp.windows.x:36360 comp.sources.wanted:16640
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!gynko!rsk
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix,comp.windows.x,comp.sources.wanted
Subject: Re: FOLLLOWUP TO: X11R4 on DEC 5000 Ultrix 4.x
Keywords: X11R4, DEC 5000, server, Ultrix 4.x
Message-ID: <43001@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 13:42:31 GMT
References: <2692@sierra.ACA.MCC.COM> <1991May8.235652.2246@crl.dec.com> <1991May9.192546.18589@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Followup-To: comp.unix.ultrix
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: gynko.circ.upenn.edu

>In article <1991May8.235652.2246@crl.dec.com>, jg@crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys) writes:
> The biggest reason for vendors to convert to R4 servers are two things:
> 1) better memory utilization
> 2) higher performance, particularly for windowing operations.

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that correct handling
of ICCCM for R4 clients necessitates using an R4 server -- at least,
the problems I seem to be having with things like drag-and-drop
seem to be related to mishandling of ICCCM.  (I'm running DEC's R3
server on a DS5000/PXG with MIT X11R4 clients and XView 2.0-built
applications.)

---Rsk
--
---Rsk
rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu, rsk@ecn.purdue.edu, pur-ee!rsk