Xref: utzoo comp.sys.dec:497 comp.os.vms:4396
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!tada
From: tada@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Tadayoff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: X vs. UIS on uVax 2000
Message-ID: <2648@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 88 19:42:07 GMT
References: <635@ndmath.UUCP> <598@nitrex.UUCP> <2629@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3476@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: tada@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Tadayoff)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <3476@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU> rws@zermatt.lcs.mit.edu (Robert W. Scheifler) writes:
>    [my silly statements:]
>    > One final comparison -- X11 treats everything as one byte/pixel
>    > whether you're on a monochrome or color system, so it is considerably
>    > slower than UIS which is specific for monochrome or color.  (The code
>    > is the same, but the hardware knows what size to make things.)
>
>This is completely silly.  The X11 protocol certainly is not
>brain-damaged in this way.  And if you've run certain development
>servers on certain non-Digital hardware, and noticed that it runs
>substantially faster on 1-bit screens than 8-bit screens, you would
>realize that the code obviously can be different.
>
>				Bob Scheifler
>				MIT X Consortium

My apologies for any errors.  A good friend of mine has been doing a
fair amount of X programming at MIT and uses only X10 because he said
X11 was too slow becuase of the byte/pixel reason.  Perhaps he's
wrong, perhaps the implementation he's using is brain-damaged even
though the protocol itself isn't.  Thanks for setting the record
straight.

(I guess that teaches me to try and write intelligent comments late at
night.  :-)