rgc@wam.umd.edu (Ross Garrett Cutler) (10/25/90)
Hello, Not intending to beat this drum till it has no sound, but could someone please explain to me *why* X is such a network hog and DPS *isn't*. I've used X11 extensively, and it is true -- it does take up a lot of bandwidth. But so would DPS, I would think. I mean, there are high level commands in both to draw lines, circles, tiles, ...; just because X is at a lower level doesn't mean it's inefficient. And while I'm on the subject, the biggest network hog is diskless workstations. I read an article in DEC News that said X terminals take up ~1/6 the traffic of diskless workstations on the average. I've seen similar figures elsewhere as well. And Bill Joy of Sun says that Sun won't sell X terminals because X bogs down a LAN; he really means that Sun can make more money selling SLCs and a server ($$$) to support them. I'm all for NeXT and DPS (I use one every day). But let's not accuse X for being a hog (indeed: our DEC VT1200 runs X nicely, but the 34010 inside of it doesn't have enough horsepower to run DEC's DPS extension to X -- you would need a FAST chip for DPS processing, aside from the overhead of X). Thanks for any replies (no flames, *please*). -- Please email -- I'll summarize. Ross Cutler University of Maryland, College Park Internet: rgc@wam.umd.edu