mike@apex.yorku.ca (Mike Marques) (12/05/90)
Greetings...
There's a possibility that we will be switching a number of users from DECwindows
running on Ultrix 3.1D to MIT distributed X11R4 (I know DECwindows is R3).
Has anyone done this?
If so could you describe what were the biggest problems you had when doing so?
I'm looking for loss of functionality, user confusion, etc...
I know I lose display postscript when doing so since it is implemented as a
server extension.
Thanks in advance...
Mike
--
Mike Marques )( Usenet: ......!utzoo!yunexus!mike
Computing & Communications Services )( mike@outland.yorku.ca
(IT division), York University. )( Bitnet: mike@yulibra
Only visiting this planet... )( Voice: (416) 736-5257eap@bu-pub.bu.edu (Eric Pearce) (12/09/90)
In article <MIKE.90Dec5105939@apex.yorku.ca> mike@apex.yorku.ca (Mike Marques) says: >Greetings... > >There's a possibility that we will be switching a number of users from DECwindows >running on Ultrix 3.1D to MIT distributed X11R4 (I know DECwindows is R3). >Has anyone done this? >If so could you describe what were the biggest problems you had when doing so? >I'm looking for loss of functionality, user confusion, etc... >I know I lose display postscript when doing so since it is implemented as a >server extension. My motivation for switching over was that we are writing applications with Motif 1.1 and X11R4. I commented out Xprompter out of /etc/ttys and fired up xdm from rc.local. There is an alias file to map decwindows fonts to MIT fonts (so you can still run dxcalendar, etc) You can type it in from the Ultrix/UWS 4.0 Release notes suppliment or get it from various anonymous ftp sites. There is also a program floating around that can grab fonts from the Dec server and output them in bdf format so you can run bdftosnf and it install them for the MIT server. The MIT server seems faster than the Dec R3 server, but to be fair, the 4.1 Dec one is supposedly R4 and might be comparable. Things look better with the SHAPE extension too. -e -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Pearce eap@bu-pub.bu.edu Boston University Information Technology 111 Cummington Street, Boston MA 02215 617-353-2780 voice 617-353-6260 fax
iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu (Mike Iglesias) (12/09/90)
In article <70306@bu.edu.bu.edu> eap@bu-pub.bu.edu (Eric Pearce) writes: >The MIT server seems faster than the Dec R3 server, but to be fair, >the 4.1 Dec one is supposedly R4 and might be comparable. The X server in Ultrix 4.1 is *not* R4. Mike Iglesias University of California, Irvine Internet: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu BITNET: iglesias@uci uucp: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!iglesias
mra@srchtec.UUCP (Michael Almond) (12/09/90)
In article <27618197.29730@orion.oac.uci.edu> Mike Iglesias <iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu> writes: >In article <70306@bu.edu.bu.edu> eap@bu-pub.bu.edu (Eric Pearce) writes: >>The MIT server seems faster than the Dec R3 server, but to be fair, >>the 4.1 Dec one is supposedly R4 and might be comparable. > >The X server in Ultrix 4.1 is *not* R4. Right, they mention in the 4.1 release notes that the Xlib is *compatible* with R4. The release notes don't mention any changes to the server. On page B-4 of the 4.1 release notes you see "Xlib compatibility with MIT X Release 4". On page 4-1 of the 4.1 release notes near the bottom you'll see "All servers have been compiled under X11 release 3". --- Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. mra%srchtec@salestech.com 4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200 emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra norcross, georgia 30092 (404) 441-1457 (office) [search]: Systems Engineering Approaches to Research and Development
mao@eden.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Olson) (12/10/90)
straying just a little from the original subject of this thread: we're running mit's R4 server on our decstation cluster at berkeley. we have noticed the following curious fact: identical X11 programs running under the identical X11R4 server binary do substantially faster screen drawing on our decstation 3100's than on our decstation 5000's. we have none of the interesting graphics options on either our 3100's or our 5000's. worse performance on the newer hardware is counter-intuitive. to be fair, this is the only instance of performance degradation we've seen. can anyone offer a plausible explanation for this behavior? mike olson postgres research group uc berkeley mao@postgres.berkeley.edu