jensen@gt-eedsp.UUCP (P. Allen Jensen) (08/15/88)
After installing X11 on a uVax QVSS system, the person using the system
complained that the X11 version seemed slower than the X10 version.
Should XTERM under X11 be slower at scrolling/updating than XTERM
under X10 on a QVSS or have I done something wrong when building
the X11R2 release ? I used the -O flag and had no debug code enabled.
The fonts are not compressed. The system is running ULTRIX 1.something
not 2.0 but everything seems to be working OK (a few minor changes -
strchr vs index). Any suggestions or performance improvement patches
for the QVSS would be appretiated.
Thanks
--
P. Allen Jensen
Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250
USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!jensen
INTERNET: jensen@gteedsp.gatech.edujim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Jim Fulton) (08/16/88)
Yes, the X10 qvss server might have been a bit faster than the R2 sample server as the old version was tuned for performance whereas the new one was designed for portability. There will be several noticable improvements in the R3 server, but we're always willing to see optimizations.... Jim Fulton MIT X Consortium
rpd@CS.CMU.EDU (Richard Draves) (08/16/88)
I've gotten an earful of similar complaints here. Some people experimented with replacing bitblt code with calls to a whizzy assembler bitblt. They claimed significant improvements, but it was done in a gross way that I refused to pick up. Because the guy behind this now has a Sun, I don't think anything will come of it. Rich