ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) (02/05/91)
I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under A/UX? Thanks. Rick Giles Bitnet: FRGILES@Acadia.ca
ewing-martin@cs.yale.edu (Martin Ewing) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) writes: >I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with >getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. >What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under >A/UX? Thanks. Two big advantages for MacX: You get the Mac desktop along with your X client windows, so you can run regular Mac applications. It also takes only a modest amount of disk space, one or two megs, I think. The disadvantage is that performance of your X windows is somewhat limited, especially for animation like 'ico'. Running the X11 server, you get zero Macintosh compatibility but great performance. Of course you get the X client library, too, which you can run with either the vanilla X11 server or MacX. Take your pick, but I think MacX is the Better Way for most of us. Martin Ewing: Ewing@Yale.edu
abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca>, ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) writes: |> I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with |> getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. |> What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under |> A/UX? Thanks. |> |> |> Rick Giles |> |> Bitnet: FRGILES@Acadia.ca Sorry for delay: news was broken here for awhile. You can upgrade your A/UX machine to run A/UX 2.0.1, which is shipping in about a month or so (it's finished now, but in the pipeline), which contains MacX 1.1 (a newer version) and then run whatever clients you already have on your A/UX machine. (MacX only includes the server, a font compiler, a built-in optional window manager, and a few other goodies, but no clients. It also runs (same binary) on Macintosh OS.) Or you can buy the X Window System for A/UX (version 2.1 is now shipping) which contains MacX 1.1 and a complete set of X11R4 clients and a good optimized X11R4 "native" server. If you have further questions, please ask. -- Alan Mimms (alan@apple.com, ...!apple!alan) | My opinions are generally A/UX X group | pretty worthless, but Apple Computer | they *are* my own... "Laugha whila you can, monkey boy..." -- John Whorfin in Buckaroo Banzai "Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan
abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca>, ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) writes: |> I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with |> getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. |> What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under |> A/UX? Thanks. |> |> |> Rick Giles |> |> Bitnet: FRGILES@Acadia.ca Oops. I realized after hitting "send" that I had failed to answer your question very completely. Sorry for the additional bandwidth... MacX is an X11R4 server which lives in the "Macintosh world" on A/UX or Macintosh OS (one binary fits all). It provides a facility for starting clients (and other processes) on remote (or local if running A/UX) machines and a built-in window manager which is optional. It provides a high degree of integration between your Macintosh applications and the X11 clients -- for example, cut and paste of text and color graphics in both directions. The X Window System for A/UX contains MacX and another server (which is mutually exclusive with MacX) which takes over your entire screen(s). While this server's performance is somewhat (say, 20%) better than MacX's performance, it is mutually exclusive with the Macintosh world -- you can't run ANY Macintosh applications while running the "Native X" server. The X Window System for A/UX also contains a set of clients and the full development environment from MIT (libraries and interface files), built to take advantage of A/UX's shared library capability. If you have any questions, please ask. -- Alan Mimms (alan@apple.com, ...!apple!alan) | My opinions are generally A/UX X group | pretty worthless, but Apple Computer | they *are* my own... "Laugha whila you can, monkey boy..." -- John Whorfin in Buckaroo Banzai "Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan
abm@alan.aux.apple.com (Alan Mimms) (02/12/91)
In article <28562@cs.yale.edu>, ewing-martin@cs.yale.edu (Martin Ewing) writes: |> In article <1991Feb4.230846.1421@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> ifocs9d@aucs.AcadiaU.ca (Rick Giles) writes: |> >I'm upgrading A/UX and X Window System 11R3 on a Mac II and am faced with |> >getting MacX or the X Window System 11R4. |> >What are the advantages/disadvantages of one of these servers running under |> >A/UX? Thanks. |> |> Two big advantages for MacX: You get the Mac desktop along with your X client |> windows, so you can run regular Mac applications. It also takes only a modest |> amount of disk space, one or two megs, I think. The disadvantage is that |> performance of your X windows is somewhat limited, especially for animation |> like 'ico'. I'd like to point out that color performance is about 2-3 times better in MacX 1.1 (just now shipping and part of A/UX 2.0.1) than in MacX 1.0.1. This might help ameliorate (sp?) that disadvantage somewhat. |> |> Running the X11 server, you get zero Macintosh compatibility but great |> performance. Of course you get the X client library, too, which you can run |> with either the vanilla X11 server or MacX. |> |> Take your pick, but I think MacX is the Better Way for most of us. Thank you. I like it too. |> |> Martin Ewing: Ewing@Yale.edu -- Alan Mimms (alan@apple.com, ...!apple!alan) | My opinions are generally A/UX X group | pretty worthless, but Apple Computer | they *are* my own... "Laugha whila you can, monkey boy..." -- John Whorfin in Buckaroo Banzai "Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan