Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!raveling From: raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals Message-ID: <7627@venera.isi.edu> Date: 24 Feb 89 17:50:25 GMT References: <19613@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <611@gt-eedsp.UUCP> <4921@xenna.Encore.COM> <13216@steinmetz.ge.com> <7610@venera.isi.edu> <13242@steinmetz.ge.com> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling) Distribution: comp Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 25 In article <13242@steinmetz.ge.com> dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP () writes: >In article <7610@venera.isi.edu> raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: > >> Another aspect of our different perspective is that >> we need about 75 megabytes of swap space, with the >> biggest demand coming from running LISP under UNIX. >But you can't run LISP on a windowing terminal either. But users of a windowing terminal can use LISP running on a different host machine; given the same software on the host, each user would still need his own 75 MB of swap space on the host. That was the original poster's point about resource costs -- some represent a constant cost, no matter what part of the overall system they're in. BTW, the question of comparing apples and oranges about various aspects of resource usage is entirely germane; in fact, to describe the actual situation we'd better throw in some grapefruits and prunes. Maybe even some California Raisins. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu