Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!infonode!ingr!b11!b11!jon From: jon@choctaw.b23b.ingr.com (Jon Stone) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4 Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 91 18:52:47 GMT References: <1991May29.144727.5008@javelin.sim.es.com> <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp> Sender: @b11.ingr.com Organization: Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL Lines: 35 In-Reply-To: root@shawn.uucp's message of 6 Jun 91 06:02:08 GMT In article <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) writes: .....lots of rhetorical flaming deleted... In answer: I did not elaborate because I have limited time to read news and even less time to write long dissertations (sp?). I still hold to my opinion that the MIT release is superior in performance, portability, and quality. And it is *not*, as you put it, a "crock". It is simply my opinion, which you need not accept. Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. You obviously have not compared xnews to Xsun on a machine running a GX accelerator. MIT's server treats it as a dumb frame buffer (read the source), whereas Sun's xnews seems to take full advantage of the GX's capabilities. BTW, all our tests have been on SPARCstation 2's. The xnews server does seem to use more memory than Xsun. As for the other xnews bugs you mention, I don't know much about them. These are just my opinions. Jon -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Stone jon@ingr.com Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL "He who wants by the yard, but tries by the inch should be kicked by the foot." - a cookbook ----------------------------------------------------------------------