🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5SKHRP3@taronga.com>, 
peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul16.043933.8324@news.eng.convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
|> >NeWS uses outrageous amounts of memory and cycles.  A windowing system
|> >that alone makes a workstation unusable isn't worth much.
|> 
|> Remember what "a workstation" was when NeWS came out. Was it a Sun-3 or
|> only a Sun-2?
|> 
|> When NeWS came out it took pretty much a whole 68000 to drive it, but remember
|> that it's going to use up a constant number of cycles. On faster CPUS that
|> means more for the application. X, because it requires all these extra context
|> switches, takes up more cycles as the CPU gets faster. I'm pretty sure that
|> on a Sun-3 they were pretty near breakeven, depending on the application (and
|> remember how "usable" X is on a Sun-3?) and on today's Sparcs the cost of
|> interpreting Postscript is negligable.
|> -- 
|>                                                                 `-_-'
|>                          Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`
|> 
|> Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032

Unfortunately that isn't so on my poor little SS1+. I have tried both
OW2 & OW3 and, apart from DND, I don't like them. Now I run plain
vanilla X11 r5 and I am much happier. It is a matter of taste I realize
but none the less I find NeWS more costly than it is worth.

-- 

Michael Salmon

#include	<standard.disclaimer>
#include	<witty.saying>
#include	<fancy.pseudo.graphics>

Ericsson Telecom AB
Stockholm