Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: amiga 2500UX
Message-ID: <6873@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 21 Jan 89 02:50:36 GMT
References: <37@snll-arpagw.UUCP>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 37

in article <37@snll-arpagw.UUCP>, paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) says:
> In article <11280@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
> ->It exists.  It works.  Has an MMU.  The custom windowing system (not
> ->intuition, workbench or X, or anything else you've ever seen) is
> ->pretty slick.  No flames, OK?  A non-standard windowing system is
> ->better than nothing.  Beside, it's slick.  VERY fast.
> 
> Why Commodore does not use X as the windowing system I cannot understand.
> There should be two big reasons why they shold use it:
> 
> 1) It is fast becoming the standard Unix windowing system.
> 
> 2) A former Commodore-Amiga employee (Dale Luck) has already X11
>    working under AmigaDOS.

How about reasons why they should NOT use it:

1) It takes up massive amounts of disk space, and they only have an
80mb drive in their base system.

2) Takes up a lot of memory space, and they only have 4mb of 32-bit
RAM. Would cause lots of paging and thrashing. 

It seems to me that a small, fast windowing environment is a Big Win
under these conditions. Very little Unix software assumes any sort of
windowing environment, so this is no Big Loss, either.  X is fairly
fast (though not excessively so), but is far from small.

However, I do agree that they should offer it as an option for
networking environments. First, they have to implement a networking
environment, though!

--
Eric Lee Green    ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
          Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509              
Netter A: In Hell they run VMS.
Netter B: No.  In Hell, they run MS-DOS.  And you only get 256k.