bferguso@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (B. Ferguson) (03/30/89)
Has anyone had any experience with DEC windows, specifically how compatible with X11r3 is it. Can code written for 11R3 X-lib run against DEC widows without change? Thanks Bruce.
hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) (03/31/89)
In article <10871@paris.ics.uci.edu> B. Ferguson <bferguso@ics.uci.edu> writes: >Has anyone had any experience with DEC windows, specifically how >compatible with X11r3 is it. Can code written for 11R3 X-lib run against >DEC widows without change? I can't speak for Ultrix, but under VMS, DECwindows appears to be completely conforming. I ran the xstone benchmark (posted in comp.sources.x a couple of days ago) without change, for example. John Hascall
jg@crltrx.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys) (04/01/89)
In article <10871@paris.ics.uci.edu> B. Ferguson <bferguso@ics.uci.edu> writes: >Has anyone had any experience with DEC windows, specifically how >compatible with X11r3 is it. Can code written for 11R3 X-lib run against >DEC widows without change? Well, you might say I've had some experience with X and DECwindows :-). The simple answer is, if it doesn't work, its a bug. The DECwindows servers should run fine against clients built using the MIT X11R3 distribution. The DECwindows X servers have the fonts that R3 expects, and there were no protocol changes between R2 and R3. Depending if you are on PMAX or VAX, what comes out of the box may or may not be based on R3. PMAX is using an R3 based server, for example. - Jim Gettys
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (04/03/89)
In article <10871@paris.ics.uci.edu> B. Ferguson <bferguso@ics.uci.edu> writes: >Has anyone had any experience with DEC windows, specifically how >compatible with X11r3 is it. Here's mine. I've got it running on a mono vs2000 with "only" 6 meg. MIT 11.3 runs just fine on this machine, but DECwindows is a **PIG**. A terminal window seems to take up something like >>>>900k<<<<<. The machine pages like crazy, and performance is *severely* bad. As far as compatibility, I tried to run some of the core MIT 11.3 programs from remote machines on it. Some of them wouldn't run at all, others ran strangely. xeyes, for example, ran, but with the upper right quarter of everything (the pupil, the circle, etc...) missing! I'm underwhelmed. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, my VT05, or my 11/34) beak is@>beak is not Anthony A. Datri @SysAdmin(Stepstone Corporation) aad@stepstone.com stpstn!aad
envbvs@epb2.lbl.gov (Brian V. Smith) (04/04/89)
In article <3104@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > In article <10871@paris.ics.uci.edu> B. Ferguson <bferguso@ics.uci.edu> writes: > >Has anyone had any experience with DEC windows, specifically how > >compatible with X11r3 is it. > > Here's mine. I've got it running on a mono vs2000 with "only" 6 meg. MIT 11.3 > runs just fine on this machine, but DECwindows is a **PIG**. A terminal > window seems to take up something like >>>>900k<<<<<. The machine pages like > crazy, and performance is *severely* bad. > > As far as compatibility, I tried to run some of the core MIT 11.3 programs > from remote machines on it. Some of them wouldn't run at all, others ran > strangely. xeyes, for example, ran, but with the upper right quarter of > everything (the pupil, the circle, etc...) missing! > > I'm underwhelmed. > I had the same experience. We have two color vs2000's with "only" 6 meg and performance was abysmal! Also, some bitmaps, e.g. twm's resize and keyboard bitmaps in the title bars were bit-shifted or byte-swapped when we ran twm under DEC's server. We finally gave up on all the DEC stuff and stuck to MIT's release. DEC has finally found a way to force people to buy more memory than they should need! _____________________________________ Brian V. Smith (bvsmith@lbl.gov) Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory We don't need no stinking signatures!
allynh@marvax.uucp (Allyn Hardyck) (04/12/89)
In article <3104@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > MIT 11.3 runs just fine on this machine, but DECwindows is a **PIG**. Hmm... I guess the vs2000 is a substantially better machine than the old uvaxII/GPX, cause you seem to be having more luck with the MIT release than I. Actually everything but large bitmap-type programs (xsetroot, xphoon, bitmap etc.) work all right, but I was hoping, given what the consortium people had been saying about it, that the DECwindows server would work substantially better in those areas. Oh well. And my guess was that with DECwindows available, the MIT people would no longer feel the need to improve on their original sample server. Anyone know if this would be a correct assumption? Allyn Hardyck allynh@marvax.berkeley.edu
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (04/12/89)
I call 'em DICwindows ...
Not only is it slow but you can't easily do things like having an
xterm running on a remote machine pointing directly to your display.
By digging through the manuals I finally found that you could use
uwm instead and use X as God (or MIT anyway) intended ;-). I do
end up with a Status Manager running as an icon up in the corner
of the screen.
Or .. if you look in /etc/ttys you'll find a commented out line
which'll run uwm directly without all that DICwindows gunk ...
BTW ... the slowness isn't because of a bad driver or anything
like that. It's because of *huge* programs that're swapping
over the ether. Our vs2000's are a bit weak in the memory department
and apparently, from the service calls we've put in, the development
people all use machines with lots of memory. i.e. no (little) swapping
So they don't see these problems ...
--
<- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-
<- The problem with mnemonics is they mean different things to different people.jim@expo.lcs.mit.edu (Jim Fulton) (04/12/89)
> And my guess was that with DECwindows > available, the MIT people would no longer feel the need to improve on their > original sample server. Anyone know if this would be a correct assumption? Yes I know, and no it would not be. However, we probably attach a slightly different meaning to "improve".... We continue to work on making the generic framebuffer code (mi, mfb, cfb) as portable and as correct (i.e. conforming to the X Protocol) as possible. While we don't try to speed up individual platforms, we do try to incorporate optimizations done by others whenever we can verify that they will work across a wide range of platforms. Jim Fulton MIT X Consortium p.s. You can speed up the MIT server by using the GNU C compiler and the Purdue speedups done by Gene Spafford at Purdue and Martin Friedmann at CITI/UofMich.
kline@tuna.cso.uiuc.edu (Charley Kline) (04/13/89)
>> MIT 11.3 runs just fine on this machine, but DECwindows is a **PIG**. > > Hmm... I guess the vs2000 is a substantially better machine than the old > uvaxII/GPX, cause you seem to be having more luck with the MIT release than I. > Actually everything but large bitmap-type programs (xsetroot, xphoon, bitmap > etc.) work all right, but I was hoping, given what the consortium people had > been saying about it, that the DECwindows server would work substantially > better in those areas. Oh well. And my guess was that with DECwindows > available, the MIT people would no longer feel the need to improve on their > original sample server. Anyone know if this would be a correct assumption? > I run the DECwindows server and window manager (dxwm), but I bagged the seesion manager and dxterm. I run the MIT clients. On this 6Mb VS2000, things are a bit slow but not so bad that it's unusable or even annoying. Hey, speaking of window managers, has anyone gotten awm from the X11R3 tape to run under DECwindows? I know it works because a colleague got it to work on a Sun-3 running "real" MIT X, but it does strange things (like cause xterm to dump core) on my 2000. Is there some subtle incompatibility here? ----- Charley Kline, University of Illinois Computing Services. (217) 333-3339 kline@tuna.cso.uiuc.edu {uunet,seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!kline "Just another useless dead thing, I've been killed by love."