Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!purdue!decwrl!decvax!crltrx!jg
From: jg@crltrx.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Figuring out the right DISPLAY variable when you rlogin.
Message-ID: <130@crltrx.crl.dec.com>
Date: 18 Apr 89 15:38:47 GMT
References: <19688@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <2250@titan.sw.mcc.com> <BOB.89Apr18091053@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: jg@crltrx.crl.dec.com.UUCP (Jim Gettys)
Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Lines: 21

>
>Does anyone know the general answer: how do the network, memory, and
>CPU loads on the host compare between xterm, rlogind, and telnetd in a
>typical 4.3-like system?

Back in V10 days, I did some measurements which showed xterm using
around 1/2 the cpu time as a rlogin.  But at that point, xterm had been
carefully performance tuned (it has since become much fancier and more
bloated), so the measurements are hardly valid these days, without further
information. 

But blindly presuming that X applications are necessarily "more expensive" 
than terminal applications doing the identical thing is a very poor idea 
in general; sweeping generalizations are very perilous.  It is certainly
the case that people tend to demand more out of window based environments
(for example, my display (DECstation 3100) can run more than 50,000 
characters/second, wheras 9600 baud sets a limit of 1000 characters/second 
as a rate a program could be generating text for a user).  So I certainly
can demand more of a machine than I could in the past, when there
was a soda straw between me and the machine I was using.
				- Jim