Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!marvax!allynh
From: allynh@marvax.uucp (Allyn Hardyck)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: DEC windows/X windows compatibility
Message-ID: <28757@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 11 Apr 89 17:59:19 GMT
References: <3104@stpstn.UUCP> <2628@decuac.DEC.COM> <10871@paris.ics.uci.edu> <2335@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: allynh@marvax.berkeley.edu (Allyn Hardyck)
Organization: UC Berkeley, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering (Fluid Mechanics)
Lines: 14

In article <3104@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
> MIT 11.3 runs just fine on this machine, but DECwindows is a **PIG**.

Hmm...  I guess the vs2000 is a substantially better machine than the old
uvaxII/GPX, cause you seem to be having more luck with the MIT release than I.
Actually everything but large bitmap-type programs (xsetroot, xphoon, bitmap
etc.) work all right, but I was hoping, given what the consortium people had
been saying about it, that the DECwindows server would work substantially
better in those areas.  Oh well.  And my guess was that with DECwindows
available, the MIT people would no longer feel the need to improve on their
original sample server.  Anyone know if this would be a correct assumption?

Allyn Hardyck
allynh@marvax.berkeley.edu