[comp.windows.x] 80X86 vs 680N0 and X

kpk@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (kenneth.p.kretsch..jr) (07/18/89)

At Xhibition last month I remember someone stating that the 680N0 processor
family was a better platform for X than the 80N86 family. Something to do with
bit manipulation. Can anyone elaborate on this? My application is faced
with recommending a system based on one or the other (or both).

While I'm at it, I've noticed that no one has posted any reviews of
Xhibition 89. Considering the ease at which people toss around opinions on
the Net, it's most uncany. Has there been some sort of gentle-persons
agreement not to say anything about Xhibition? At the risk of breaking
some taboo....I thought Xhibition '89 was pretty good, and much better than
Xhibition '88. I especially liked a) The ICCCM tutorial, 2) the product
exhibits, and c) the X terminal seminar. I did not like a) the programming
experiences seminar and the b) T-shirts, which weren't bad except they were
StaticGrey rather that TrueColor and the dumb "Xhibitionists do it
in Windows" printed at the bottom.

joel@pandora.pa.dec.com (Joel McCormack) (07/24/89)

Personally, I think the MIPS RX000 architecture makes the best platform
for X.  Something about a short cycle time, pretty impressive compilers,
and a very nice set of sub-word manipulation instructions.

- Joel McCormack (decwrl!joel, joel@decwrl.dec.com)